Al Gore and IPCC gets Nobel Peace Prize - effects?

[Decker]

Regardless of what Gore did as a Vice President, or his failure to become the next president, he's been very successful in his mission to bring attention to global warming, and the problems that comes with it.

Lots of people have accused Gore of trying to use his environmental agenda as a platform to launch a new bid for presidency, which he's repeatedly denied he will do. Last night on Norwegian television was the latest time he said he wasn't gonna run BTW.

Ad hominem attacks on Gore that he's a "loser", "fat", et al, serves no intellectual purpose.

Regardless of what I think of Gore on other issues (and I disagree with him on plenty) I will give Gore lots of credit for helping making our environment being a bigger part of the daily agenda.

Only a year ago, a lot of people would claim that the global warming was only propaganda.

Not so now.

Gore will never entirely be accepted by all Americans I guess, although it seems like he's trying to distance himself from party politics.

But I think any American should be proud that a fellow citizen received the Nobel Peace Prize.

I know I would be if a Swede won it.

wow.  You really have a great perspective. 

I think Gore's enemies project on him all their own vices:  ruthlessness and an unquenchable hunger for power.  They just don't understand that sometimes people act for the greater good.  That's a shame.

It is undeniable though that criticism of Gore over the last decade has been nothing short of propaganda:  they just make shit up about him and slam him.

[Dos Equis]

Why should he have won going away?  That makes no sense. 

There is a reason we have elections.

Makes sense to me:

1.  Clinton was one of the most popular presidents in U.S. history. 

2.  Gore served two terms as VP for one of the most popular presidents in U.S. history. 

3.  Gore had plenty of money.

4.  Gore had name recognition. 

5.  Gore had a solid military record.

6.  Bush was a very weak candidate. 

7.  As you said, "Bush lied about his platform on several occasions during the debates," and "Bush did not know Social Security was a federal program."

8.  You previously said Gore handily beat Bush in the debates. 

That should have = runaway victory.  Instead, he lost.  Even Bill Clinton blasted Gore for blowing a gift wrapped presidency.  Losers find ways to lose.   

[Dos Equis]

It's not sad at all.  Tennesse is a republican state.  Gore was out of the state 8 years as vp and his senate seat was occupied largely by republicans.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

Harlan Mathews (D)1993-1994

Fred Thompson (R) 1994-2003

Lamar Alexander (R) 2003---

I think the thing that concerns me the most about your position, that he's a "loser" is that it flies in the face of the fact that he won the popular vote and that under any circumstance, when all the votes in florida were tallied, he won florida too.  Gore was right about Iraq, battling terrorism, SS, and host of other issues.  While president Cheney was wrong.  I mean Bush.

The only reason Bush is in the whitehouse from 2000 is b/c of the worst legal decision in Supreme Court history---Bush v. Gore.

Sorry Decker.  There is no excuse for losing your home state in a presidential election, particularly when losing your home state costs you the election.  The man should been all over that place going door to door.  His own people rejected him.  As kaje said, they knew him best. 

Yes he won the popular.  I also disagreed with the U.S. Supreme Court and believed the Florida Supreme Court got it right.  Still, the fact he lost his home state just blows me away. 

Also, aren't there different opinions about what a recount would have shown? 

[Straw Man]

There's nothing funnier than people who have done nothing in their own life calling people like Gore a loser

[Decker]

Makes sense to me:

1.  Clinton was one of the most popular presidents in U.S. history. 

2.  Gore served two terms as VP for one of the most popular presidents in U.S. history. 

3.  Gore had plenty of money.

4.  Gore had name recognition. 

5.  Gore had a solid military record.

6.  Bush was a very weak candidate. 

7.  As you said, "Bush lied about his platform on several occasions during the debates," and "Bush did not know Social Security was a federal program."

8.  You previously said Gore handily beat Bush in the debates. 

That should have = runaway victory.  Instead, he lost.  Even Bill Clinton blasted Gore for blowing a gift wrapped presidency.  Losers find ways to lose.   

Gore could have been Christ Himself and the "liberal" media's incessant bashing would still take him down a peg.

Bush had better financing, was horrible at the debates, and embarrassed himself whenever he spoke for more than 5 minutes. 

But the press viewed him as "a guy you'd like to have a beer with"...."honest, w/ no messy cleanup or aftertaste..."

Propaganda works.

[Dos Equis]

Gore could have been Christ Himself and the "liberal" media's incessant bashing would still take him down a peg.

Bush had better financing, was horrible at the debates, and embarrassed himself whenever he spoke for more than 5 minutes. 

But the press viewed him as "a guy you'd like to have a beer with"...."honest, w/ no messy cleanup or aftertaste..."

Propaganda works.

Whatever Bush raised paled in comparison to the name recognition Gore had serving for one of the most popular presidents in American history.  He had a huge amount of capital.  Even Clinton blamed Gore for blowing it.   

You're only proving my point Decker.  If Bush was "horrible at the debates, and embarrassed himself whenever he spoke for more than 5 minutes" and still beat Gore, what does that say about Gore? 

Also, didn't Gore let Ralph Nadar steal enough votes from Gore to lose Florida?  Ralph Nadar?? 

[Decker]

Whatever Bush raised paled in comparison to the name recognition Gore had serving for one of the most popular presidents in American history.  He had a huge amount of capital.  Even Clinton blamed Gore for blowing it.   

You're only proving my point Decker.  If Bush was "horrible at the debates, and embarrassed himself whenever he spoke for more than 5 minutes" and still beat Gore, what does that say about Gore? 

Also, didn't Gore let Ralph Nadar steal enough votes from Gore to lose Florida?  Ralph Nadar?? 

It says more about how effective common national scripts can knock any candidate down.  Gore was supposed to be a serial exaggerator?  Come on.  Stories had to be invented and words put into his mouth to prove that point.  And to this day tools like Fred Barnes and Chris Matthews keep the lies rolling about inventing the internet, earth tones, etc.

Re Ralph Nader, it's a free country and anyone garnering 5% of the primary vote can run in the general election.

At least Gore didn't engage in smearing Nader the way Bush smeared his closest rival, McCain.  For the record, McCain is not crazy, not a Manchurian Candidate, and did not sire a black child out of wedlock.  But thanks to Team Bush, most South Carolinians became privied to that information.

[Hedgehog]

That should have = runaway victory.  Instead, he lost.  Even Bill Clinton blasted Gore for blowing a gift wrapped presidency.  Losers find ways to lose.   

You touch an interesting topic, Gore has met with both Edwards and Obama, but not with H. Clinton, to discuss politics in the campaign.

A lot of people would think that Gore's recent success would favor Clinton, but Gore's distanced himself from them ever since losing the election, blaming a lot of the loss on Bill Clinton's history of womanizing.

Which, from what I recall, is fairly historically accurate. A lot of people was pissed off with Clinton's affair's, and "wanted to re-establish the presidency".

I don't see Gore having any direct part of helping Hillary Clinton winning the election TBH. Indirectly, he may be a factor, in that she will look even more conservative by NOT getting his support.

Ironically, that may help her get swing votes.

Of course, now I am speculating, almost CT-style.

Pardon, mon amis.

[trab]

THe Effect?  -     IT CHEAPENS THE NOBEL PRIZE!

But so did Arafat and Carter. ANd even the fact fools put "Tookie" Williams in the mix. 

Please.........

[MidniteRambo]

THe Effect?  -     IT CHEAPENS THE NOBEL PRIZE!

But so did Arafat and Carter. ANd even the fact fools put "Tookie" Williams in the mix. 

Please.........

We're on the same page, see my reply # 42 ("effects?  Of course, the award is de-valued and politicized").

Man-made global warming is an issue which: (1) there is a split among scientists, not a consensus, if anything, the trend is scientists leaning in the opposite direction; and (2) is a cause celeb among "limosine liberals" and anti-American anti-capitalists. 

As such, when the Nobel prize decides to award a prize for their work on global warming, it is unmasked as a leftist politcal award and should no longer be held in the same esteem as it once was.  The award should go to scientists who are debunking the theory in the face of political pressure and the PC forces.

[Decker]

We're on the same page, see my reply # 42 ("effects?  Of course, the award is de-valued and politicized").

Man-made global warming is an issue which: (1) there is a split among scientists, not a consensus, if anything, the trend is scientists leaning in the opposite direction; and (2) is a cause celeb among "limosine liberals" and anti-American anti-capitalists. 

As such, when the Nobel prize decides to award a prize for their work on global warming, it is unmasked as a leftist politcal award and should no longer be held in the same esteem as it once was.  The award should go to scientists who are debunking the theory in the face of political pressure and the PC forces.

What is politically correct about man's industrial activity exacerbating global warming?

[MidniteRambo]

What is politically correct about man's industrial activity exacerbating global warming?

What is "PC" is when respected scientists who disagree and point to valid evidence are ostracized by their left-leaning peers.

[Decker]

What is "PC" is when respected scientists who disagree and point to valid evidence are ostracized by their left-leaning peers.

Let those respected scientists submit their papers to peer review then.  Let the papers be published alongside those of the proponents.

From where I'm sitting, generally the vested energy interests hire credentialed hitmen to write opinion pieces decrying global warming. 

The cigarette industry used to do that with doctors too.  In fact, years ago, the cigarette industry would routinely use free agent doctors to hawk smokes.

Doctors, American Medical Association hawked cigarettes as healthy for consumers http://www.newstarget.com/021949.html

[Dos Equis]

You touch an interesting topic, Gore has met with both Edwards and Obama, but not with H. Clinton, to discuss politics in the campaign.

A lot of people would think that Gore's recent success would favor Clinton, but Gore's distanced himself from them ever since losing the election, blaming a lot of the loss on Bill Clinton's history of womanizing.

Which, from what I recall, is fairly historically accurate. A lot of people was pissed off with Clinton's affair's, and "wanted to re-establish the presidency".

I don't see Gore having any direct part of helping Hillary Clinton winning the election TBH. Indirectly, he may be a factor, in that she will look even more conservative by NOT getting his support.

Ironically, that may help her get swing votes.

Of course, now I am speculating, almost CT-style.

Pardon, mon amis.

I'm sure the Lewinsky scandal hurt, but Clinton was extremely popular after the scandal: 

Clinton's approval rating reached its highest point at 73% approval in the aftermath of the impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999.[60]

A CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll conducted as he was leaving office, revealed deeply contradictory attitudes regarding Clinton.[61] Although his approval rating at 68% was higher than that of any other departing president since polling began more than seventy years earlier, only 45% said they would miss him. While 55% thought he "would have something worthwhile to contribute and should remain active in public life", 68% thought he would be remembered for his "involvement in personal scandal" rather than his accomplishments as president, and 58% answered "No" to the question "Do you generally think Bill Clinton is honest and trustworthy?". 47% of the respondents identified themselves as being Clinton supporters. 47% said he would be remembered as either "outstanding" or "above average" as a president while 22% said he would be remembered as "below average" or "poor".[62]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Public_approval

[MidniteRambo]

Let those respected scientists submit their papers to peer review then.  Let the papers be published alongside those of the proponents.

From where I'm sitting, generally the vested energy interests hire credentialed hitmen to write opinion pieces decrying global warming. 

The cigarette industry used to do that with doctors too.  In fact, years ago, the cigarette industry would routinely use free agent doctors to hawk smokes.

Doctors, American Medical Association hawked cigarettes as healthy for consumers http://www.newstarget.com/021949.html

Peer reviewed, independent non-corporate funded research, you mean sort of like this? (these stories come out all the time, you only need to open your eyes to them)

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

, Sept. 12  /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."


Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com:

[240 is Back]

Clinton's approval rating reached its highest point at 73% approval in the aftermath of the impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999.[60]

incredible.

3/4 of Americans approved of Clinton.

1/4 of Americans approve of Bush today.

That just boggles the mind.

[Decker]

Peer reviewed, independent non-corporate funded research, you mean sort of like this? (these stories come out all the time, you only need to open your eyes to them)

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

, Sept. 12  /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."


Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com:

Well fantastic then.  I guess it's that old 'liberal' media with its foot on the throat of truth again.

I've seen some of these articles that refute GW.  I've also read articles that point out the weakenesses in those refutations.  It turns into a numbers game.

500 scientists against man's role in GW and the rest of the scientific universe for man's role in GW.

There are still flat earth societies out there too.

[MidniteRambo]

Well fantastic then.  I guess it's that old 'liberal' media with its foot on the throat of truth again.

I've seen some of these articles that refute GW.  I've also read articles that point out the weakenesses in those refutations.  It turns into a numbers game.

500 scientists against man's role in GW and the rest of the scientific universe for man's role in GW.

There are still flat earth societies out there too.

There's a hell of alot more than 500 scientists who disagree.  I gave you the
"tip of the iceberg.




I find it amusing that you analogize these respected scientists to members of "flat earth societies" which sort of makes my point about PC-types installing an orthodoxy which you dare not stray.  As far as your quote  "it's that old 'liberal' media with its foot on the throat of truth again" I say "Many a truth has been spoken in jest...."


 

[Decker]

There's a hell of alot more than 500 scientists who disagree.  I gave you the
"tip of the iceberg."

I find it amusing that you analogize these respected scientists to members of "flat earth societies" which sort of makes my point about PC-types installing an orthodoxy which you dare not stray.  As far as your quote  "it's that old 'liberal' media with its foot on the throat of truth again" I say "Many a truth has been spoken in jest...."

I find it amusing that your appreciation of the truth just happens to coincide with the minority interests of the Big Energy Industry.

The GW nay-sayers are a very noisy and very tiny minority standing at odds with the scientific community around the world.

It is an undeniable truth that scientific consensus supports man's role in making GW worse.

Like I said, there are flat-earthers, supply-siders and GW antagonists.

[MidniteRambo]

I find it amusing that your appreciation of the truth just happens to coincide with the minority interests of the Big Energy Industry.

The GW nay-sayers are a very noisy and very tiny minority standing at odds with the scientific community around the world.

It is an undeniable truth that scientific consensus supports man's role in making GW worse.

Like I said, there are flat-earthers, supply-siders and GW antagonists.

"Tiny minority?"

"Undeniable truth?"

"Scientific consensus?"

Wrong again, you sound like Algore!  Start opening your mind, you are illustrating my point about PC venom against those who dare go against liberal orthodoxy.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

See "They call this a consensus?
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled." So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more
frequent . . ."

[Tre]

What does global climate change - something that has happened cyclically throughout the millions of years the earth has existed - have to do with world peace?

All this does is to further de-value the Nodel Prize, something that was once highly revered around the world. 

[Decker]

"Undeniable truth?"
Wrong again, you sound like Algore!


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

See "They call this a consensus?
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled." So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable

Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent."

"Algore"...that's hysterical.

That gallup poll you cite looks strangely like the one that appeared in Rush Limbaugh's book.  Rush grabbed the grotesquely misstated poll from George Will.  And now you are running with it.  Nowhere in the poll you cited is the statistic that 53% of scientists polled opposed GW.  You've fallen for propaganda again.

Where Limbaugh claimed that ozone depletion was being hyped by "prophets of doom," the E.D.F. report stated, "Substantially reduced levels of ozone have been measured over most of the globe." Where Limbaugh cited a Gallup poll finding that 53 percent of scientists engaged in global-climate research don't believe that global warming has occurred, the E.D.F. discovered the numbers had been garbled. E.D.F.: "Nowhere in the actual poll results are there figures that resemble those cited by … Limbaugh. Instead, the Gallup poll found that a substantial majority of the scientists polled, 66 percent, believed that human-induced global warming was already occurring."
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/wolcott200705?currentPage=2

Here's a gallup poll from recent history:   In a March 2001 Gallup poll, 61% said "most scientists believe that global warming is occurring" (30% think most scientists are unsure). http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.cfm

Do you want to re-think your minority position?

[trab]

What does global climate change - something that has happened cyclically throughout the millions of years the earth has existed - have to do with world peace?

All this does is to further de-value the Nodel Prize, something that was once highly revered around the world. 

This may be of interest though... I get Offshore Magazine. Trade rag for the Offshore Oil industry..
The fact is the Artic ice mass IS  shrinking dramaticly.
The Oil Co's and Oil service industry thinks this is just the greatest oppurtunity, and it is for them.
If man is to blame, I cant say, but the ice mass are melting dramaticly according to them.

If Gore, or ANY Politician REALLY wanted to do somthing good - They'd work at getting us not so reliant on Oil.
But THAT would be suicide.

[MidniteRambo]

"Algore"...that's hysterical.

Do you want to re-think your minority position?

I don't have a position, minority or otherwise (not being a scientist) other than I don't marginalize respected, independent scientists who dare defy the PC forces.  Here is but a small sampling of the people you, and your PC bretheren are trying to belittle as being "flat earthers" . . .  Enjoy

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming”


Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997."

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic.

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic.

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock."

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic.

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic.
--------------------

The list goes on and on and on.  I urge you to open your mind and educate yourself,

[Decker]

I don't have a position, minority or otherwise (not being a scientist) other than I don't marginalize respected, independent scientists who dare defy the PC forces.  Here is but a small sampling of the people you, and your PC bretheren are trying to belittle as being "flat earthers" . . .  Enjoy

....

You and your Big Energy brothers in principle are in the tiny minority. 

I won't beat this horse to death, but if you believed the false poll that you cited, what's to keep you from buying all the other BS out there supporting your minority position. 

You want to believe b/c it is politically expedient for you to do so.

Your posting 8 true believers does nothing to help your case that your view is in the distinct minority of the scientific community.