Congratulations, Al Gore!

[poor knight]

I just felt compelled to express my great joy that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change. It is truly a day for celebration in my country (America); one of the very few proud moments we have been able to share on the world stage in the past seven years.

[Canerican]

Really? In the past seven years we have managed to prevent a terror attack on our soil. Our economy has been strong, jobless rates are as low as they have been since WWII. We have made massive technological advancements. We have tamed a civil war in Iraq, and Iraq has the strongest economy ever, Baghdad is seeing the highest percentage of people with basic services that it ever has. The al Qaeda has been depleted. Anti-Western terrorism is generally down.
We have seen so much in the past few years, I am glad that an American has won the prize  based on mainstreaming a scientific theory (how that qualifies him to win a peace prize is past me). But it is far from being more than a blip on the radar in terms of positive events that we can attribute to America.

[highseas]

     The peace prize gives legitimacy & reward to all of the effort & work that Gore has done on climate-change.  But I don't think a Nobel Peace Prize should be given to someone who merely identifies a problem.  It should be given to someone who solves the problem.

[Canerican]

That's the thing, Gore didn't identify a problem, he just mainstreamed it.
The science behind global warming is dubious at best, the politics behind is quite real, but the science is questionable. NASA has reevaluated their data on the world climate, and the hottest years across the world was not 1998 as was previously thought, but right in the middle of the dust bowl years. In 1998 many northern Russian weather monitoring stations were down because there was not money in the Russian economy for the extensive climatology as the Ruble had just crashed. The data was not adjusted to account for the missing measurements until very recently.
I spoke with my climatology professor about this for a thesis I was writing and he is in the growing number of climatologists who believe that man is far too small and insignificant to affect the environment. Man only accounts for 1% of "greenhouse gases." Most of the rest is animals digestion, plant decay, and volcanic eruptions.
So for Nobel Prize to take a stance with a man who says "there is no other side of the global warming debate," is very irresponsible and eliminates much of the legitimacy of the formerly revered prize.

[highseas]

     I am sure that since you are doing a thesis on climatology you know more than I on the science.
     I do know that Gore is likewise no expert, but I'm sure he does speak for many climatologists throughout the world.  I would think that man and the international industrial establishment are responsible for irreparable damage to our environment and ecology, but I don't know how our climate is affected.  I did not know that man accounts for only 1% of greenhouse gases and I certainly think that Gore saying "there is no other side of the global warming debate" is very irresponsible.  Although Gore has mainstreamed the issues of climate change and pollution I don't think he deserved a peace prize.  My opinion of the Nobel Peace Prize is that it has always been a semi-
political award.  You can only guess how that works. Gore's findings and opinions may be suspect and a bit shaky, but he did bring to the forefront a very important issue for future generations.
     I would love to learn more about climatology but I'm re-reading "The Brothers K" right now, so time is limited.  Good luck on your thesis!

[Canerican]

Thanks. It's very interesting how skeptics on global warming are often confused with people who don't care about the environment. We will be faced with many environmental challenges in the very near future if changes aren't made. The problem that I have with the global warming theory is that it blinds people to the issues, not the least of which is the lack of fresh water, desertification (the expansion of deserts), and soil degradation. We are living past our means, and there needs to be great concern for the environmental problems that have been proven, because if we aren't careful, we will feel the effects of an unsustainable planet greatly in less than 20 years.

By the way, the Brothers Karamazov is an amazing piece of work as I'm sure you have seen. I can understand why time would be limited. I read it for the first time when I was 17 and it took me about 4 months to get through since it is so intensive.

[islander]

I'm pleased to see him win this award.

I voted for Gore, so it was a huge loss when Bush claimed the White House. I knew he would go right back into Iraq, just like his dad. The first one was bad enough and the second is worse.

JMHO, but the vast majority of Americans feel this way.

The republicans have been anti environment for quite some time.

Also almost all of the new programming in TV in HD is very pro environment. The only anti environment, anti global warming, is on select news stations like Fox. The rest, such as National Geographic channel, Science channel, Smithsonian, Nature, etc all have awesome nature and educational programming.

These have very solid science with the leading scholars.

You can believe what you want. I'm just saying that not all American's are anti environment.

(If I don't respond again to this thread, that doesn't mean I agree with you, or that you understand me.)

[Canerican]

Um, what the heck. Anti-environment? Since when does not believing that global warming is man-made constitute being anti-environment? Most Conservatives love the environment, we just want to be reasonable and not destroy our way of life over a THEORY. That would be silly, imagine if Jimmy Carter reacted this way in the 1970s when global cooling was imminent? A reaction is in line to help preserve our environment, but the initiatives that the Liberals have come up with range anywhere from reasonable to absolutely inane. For example taxing people heavily to somehow stop global warming, or $6 a gallon gas (with an approx. $2.50/ gal. tax to help stop theoretical global warming).
And the "vast majority" of Americans don't hate Bush, lost the popular vote by a few hundred thousand in 2000, and in 2004 he crushed John Kerry. President Bush has a higher approval rating than Harry Reid, he also has a higher approval rating than Congress. If anything the Democrats are unpopular.

[poor knight]

Canerican,

The very postulation that global warming being caused by human actions is only a theory simply belies the conscious ignorance most Republicans embrace on this issue. The overwhelming majority -- in the high 90% of scientists around the world -- believe that humans are the major contributors to global warming. The idea that because something is not 100% proven, it can be ignored is ignorance in the highest extreme. If you put five bullets in a gun with six chambers would you play Russian Roulette because it wasn't provable that you would die on the first shot? When the overwhelming body of science says that humans are the major cause of global warming, and the effects are almost assuredly going to be disastrous in the coming decades, the complete unwillingness of Republicans to take even the smallest measures to stave it off are just as reckless.

Bush has an approval rating in the low 30's. So, at least Bush is maybe not hated but disapproved of by a "vast majority." If Bush received only 30% of the vote in an election we would say he had been destroyed. 55% is considered a landslide win in most presidential elections. Reagan won 58.8% in 1984 and that was considered an absolutely overwhelming victory. So to say at least that a "vast majority" of Americans dont approve of him is certainly reasonable.

[islander]

Canerican,

Why do you assume that anyone who admires Gore's achievement is liberal who wants to increase gas taxes?

Lets see when he was vice president and Clinton was president gas was less than $2 a gallon.

Can't someone just like Gore and admire his convictions without you pouncing in and saying how great Bush is on the environment?

Your behavior in this thead is rather absurd.

By the way I have voted for republicans and like Mike Huckabee.

He is an honest well grounded person, which is refreshing change for the republicans.

He also said it's a shame republicans are the last ones to adopt a responsible policy on the environment. He also doesn't demonize "liberals".

I'm not too thrilled with the dems this time around but not for any of the extreme misinformation you mention.

JMO

[Canerican]

I am assuming that you didn't read my previous post. Go ahead, read it.

I never said that Bush was great on the environment, I implied that he is reasonable.

And Poor Knight, 90% of scientists is irrelevant, I don't care what a Zoologist says for example. But I would like to see your source for the 90% from a fairly unbiased source (a scientific poll with its methods known would be good).
The Russian Roulette analogy is wrong. You don't need to make any sacrifices in order to make sure that I don't kill myself. And Global Warming still is a theory, the fact that you will likely die if you play Russian Roulette with 5 of 6 chambers full is a fact.

[Scoundrel]

I completely agree that something needs to be done about the global climate change issue, and it's clearly evident that man has played a huge roll, if not the singular roll, in bringing this problem about, however, Al Gore is merely jumping on the bandwagon, as he's done in the past with his statements regarding the internet.



Yes, there's a serious problem with our environment.

Yes, it's due to man-kind's industrialization, beginning in the 1800's.

Yes, Al Gore is an egoist seeking the public spotlight, after his shameful defeat by a dunce in 2000, and his immature failure to accept that defeat for a full month after the results came in.

No, his supposed efforts don't amount to anything even approaching Nobel Prize standards

And the "vast majority" of Americans don't hate Bush, lost the popular vote by a few hundred thousand in 2000, and in 2004 he crushed John Kerry. President Bush has a higher approval rating than Harry Reid, he also has a higher approval rating than Congress. If anything the Democrats are unpopular.

    No, Bush is not a popular president, everyone you meet hates him, it's even become stylish to hate him.  Sure he won the election twice, but that was in 2000 and 2004---that certainly doesn't reflect the people's opinion now, in 2007, especially considering that he doesn't have to worry about another election and doesn't rightly give a damn what people think of him.  
      How could he lose to the imbecile Kerry anyway, what a wretched campaign that pampered little jerk ran.

[Canerican]

So in your world a President's popularity equals his effectiveness.

I guess Truman was a horrible President then?

everyone you meet hates him

Well that's obviously not true, I know many people who like him,  about 7 in 20 like him, and they are forecasting based on the current trend that his approval rating will hit 42% in March (this was according to research done Rasmussen, AP did a similar study that said 39% by April)

Those numbers aren't great, but given the fact the average of all the major surveys say that the Democrat-controlled Congress approval rating is 26%, it seems pretty good. Have any of you considered that maybe people are simply disillusioned with politics and don't approve of anyone?

if not the singular roll

Are you not aware that 80% of Greenhouse gases come from volcanic activity (which has been at rates never seen seen the 1840s (the 1850s were also very hot)). We are not in the hottest years on record 1934 was the hottest year ever.
I actually believe that Global Warming does exist, but if you look at the models, most say that the Earth will only heat up 0.5 degrees C by 2100. Based on the oceans will rise by one foot, which is really nothing as we see these fluctuations often anyway.

Saying man plays the singular role shows a great amount of lack of any scientific knowledge, because even those who believe that Global Warming is the biggest issue facing our time will admit that the percentage of CO2 and Methane produced by man is miniscule compared to that produced in nature.

Breathing of animals causes far more CO2 than all the factories in the world. A few people are saying that America should adopt the same 1 child policy as China to combat this. I am not making that up.

[Mogwai]

Canerican, I agree with you.  You reflect my thoughts to the T.  

islander: Canerican's "behavior" on this thread has not been "absurd".  He has merely stated his points that happen to conflict with yours and poor knight's.  

It's okay to disagree about things and so far, I have not seen any behavior from either side that deserves reprimand.

[Scoundrel]

maybe people are simply disillusioned with politics and don't approve of anyone?

This very well may be the case.  Politicians are despicable.