The effects of continued globing warming will cause a scarcity of resources that would no doubt spur countless wars in the future. This award is very tightly linked to peace.

"The effects of continued globing warming will cause a scarcity of resources..."

Which resources?

According to whom?

Is it really useful or necessary to piss on this particular parade? The Nobel Peace Prize could be considered the 'ultimate do-gooder' award. It's too bad rightists feel they have make a sour face about it.

And since there hasn't been significant improvement in most of the wars in the world recently, who would a viable alternative have been had the name of the award been interpreted more strictly?

From the wire services:

"Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man's control," the committee said.

It warned that climate change -- linked to droughts, floods and rising seas -- could threaten living conditions across the world, prompt mass migrations and increase the risk of wars.

"We face a true planetary emergency," Gore said. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

With all due respect to algore (a politician), it's a political issue, pure and simple.

Nothing more.

What little science is involved consists of forecasts based on computer "models" created from WAGs (wild-ass guesses, in scientific terms) and assumptions made by scientists with a vested interest in being correct.

One such forecast, the infamous "hockey stick," has been repeatedly debunked and invalidated.

Last week, those same scientists invited a group of journalists and others to Greenland to observe a glacier melting and falling into the sea at a fairly rapid clip. Everyone oohed and aahed, and rushed to file their stories about the pernicious effects of GW, which flooded (pun intended) the media for several days.

However, the scientists did NOT show the journalists the similar glacier not far away that is actually adding ice, and growing.

That would have been a real "Inconvenient Truth."

This article makes a good point. There's a difference between good things and peacemaking things. The guys who created YouTube have influenced the world in a positive way, at least the world of badly-dubbed homemade videos. Why not give them a Peace Prize?

As for Mandela et al, remember the rules for winning awards. Oscars go to comedic actors when they do a serious role; Nobel Prizes go to murderers when they stop killing people. It's all about playing against type.

Re: the article and Comment # 2:

The link between environmental degradation, population and resource pressure as a significant causal factor in war is a long-standing one, so the claim that there is no linkage to peace or conflict prevention is disingenous at best. Mopping up spilled gasoline certainly qualifies as fire prevention, you don't need the fire burning the house down first to qualify....

I know it's hard but try not to let the ideological antipathy some of you have towards Gore edge you over into blatent stupidity. It makes for tiresome comments and God knows there are enough of those already being posted on this site.

No planet, no peace.

There's one golden rule in technology:
"Never touch a running system."

We should stick to that and don't mess around with sophisticated systems beyond our knowledge, like climate is one.

The price for Al Gore is totally ok if the information he spreads helps preventing resource war for clean water or maintainable agricultural soil by making people over think their way of life and change it.

Wangari Maathai, in 2004, is considered the first to have been awarded the prize primarily for environmental work

Seriously though, I am all for discussion, but it's hard to believe that's what you are looking for. In your rush to be published and put down the awarding body and its recipients, you overlook the answers right in front of you.

"2007 marks the first time the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for a reason wholly unconnected to stopping war."

Just because you don't understand something does not make it so. If you had spent a few seconds looking over the press release, you would have read their reasoning.

"Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

They clearly state the award was given for peace, not a present peace, but a future one. It requires thinking outside the box.

Now you can disagree with their reasoning, but if you "assume for the moment that all of Al Gore's claims on climate change are true," then your statement that this award is "wholly unconnected to stopping war" is utterly false.

Re: Wangari Maathi, according to Nobel's website, "for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace". I'm not sure how you can tie democracy into the environment.

Re: El Bicho

Note the word choice... it ****may**** lead. They're making it up and they aren't hiding it very well.

Headaches are dangerous. They can be a symptom of a more serious ailment. People with headaches often have short tempers. Any effort to alleviate head pain improves lives and the stability of nations. This year's Nobel Peace Prize goes to Head-On. "Head-On, apply directly to the forehead".

Clavos, you of course have every right to cling to an unprovable opinion, but the fact that more scientists disagree with you than agree with you has to mean something. Most scientists are commies?

The ad running on this article for a 'Nobel Peace Prize Ringtone' gave me a good laugh.

Particle says:

There's one golden rule in technology:
"Never touch a running system.""

Really? Somebody forgot to tell me and my cohorts!

I spent a lifetime in technology and most of what we did was change running systems. Letś see, we upgraded and updated electronics in ECM systems so theyd be less susceptible to commie jamming. Why, we even changed from AM to FM systems! And beyond! We took out perfectly good running systems to put in shift-registers, spread spectrum, etc.

Were we wrong to do that?

Would you like to go back to AM radio? Black and white TV?

Where were you when we needed your keen insight?

¨We should stick to that and don't mess around with sophisticated systems beyond our knowledge, like climate is one.¨

But we ARE tinkering with climate and we have been for a couple hundred years by injecting crap into the atmosphere.

Oh well. Another bogus theory from the peanut gallery.

The award was not given for peace. It was given for the assumption that Global Warming will lead to war. There is no proof (Al Gore saying it is settled science is not proof) that GW exists. The committee awarded the prize based on a supposition of a supposition.

We could do that with millions of things. GW Bush is fighting terror so there MAY be not terrorist acts in the future.

Big Dog may invent a drug that makes all countries love each other.

The DC snipers MAY have killed the next Hitler therefore they MAY have kept the future peace.

Truman MAY have stopped millions more from being killed and made peace by dropping the bomb.

I thought the prize was for doing something that actually fostered peace, like negotiating a peace treaty, or ending a war.

However, having said all that I really do not care who they award it to (though I could use the money and I MAY have prevented a nuclear war). Al Gore needs this to bolster his self esteem so good for him. After they gave the award to Arafat, it had no real meaning.

Deano,

In comment #2 I didn't say anything in regard to war resulting from resource scarcity.

What I did ask (not say) the commenter was to enumerate what resources he thought would become scarce as a result of ongoing global warming, and from whom did he get the information.

Handy,

Did I say anyone in the GW movement is a commie? In a word, no.

I wish they were communists, rather than American liberals; communists are easier to deal with and their motivations are closer to my own.

As to the number of scientists who agree or disagree with me (or even each other): good science has nothing to do with consensus; witness Copernicus, Galileo and others who were not part of the consensus of their time. And, before everyone gets their panties in a knot, I am NOT comparing myself to them, just illustrating my point that there ARE respected scientists today who don't buy the popular dire predictions of Mr. gore.

Try this one on for size. We heed Al's warning and ween ourselves off oil. Then we lose our taste for Middle East politics and the oil baron's lose their clout leading to a much less conflicted world. Rock

Dog, I'm tired of bolstering Gore's self-esteem. He got an Emmy, an Oscar, a Nobel Prize, and almost the Presidency, and he didn't earn any of them.

Humans are causing climate change. Why does that deserve an award? We'll need the extra water from the melted polar ice packs to grow our biofuel crops anyway.

Global Warming is a fact. Period. You cannot argue that the globe is not warming. I live in NYC and 10,000 years ago it was burried benieth a glacier. That glacier has since melted. Why? Global Warming. Saying you don't believe in Global Warming is like saying you believe we still live in the Ice Age.

If the globe continues to warm it will reach the point where it is no longer sutable for human habitation. I don't care if this is caused by man or not. When the world is going to end finger pointing seems pretty pointless.

We need to start thinking of Mankind as the cure for Global Warming, not the cause. It's time we stopped putting so much energy into trying to fix the blame and redirect that energy toward fixing the problem.

Bambenek sez - "In fact, in reviewing the entire balance of past award winners, the prize was given to those working to end conflicts, promote human rights, promote economic development in poor countries, or weapons non-proliferation. 2007 marks the first time the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for a reason wholly unconnected to stopping war."

and in that very Quote there resides the refutation of the entire Article's thesis, the part in bold is what i mean

but what the hell, accuracy or objective Reality are not the gist of the Article....nor the blatant Agenda of it's author

Excelsior?

The effects of Al G(wh)ore and his groupies continued gobbling of big Macs and cheese doodles while traveling around the world in private jets, SUVs and limos lecturing all the morons who are too waste their time listing to his hypocrisy of

This is all about "the scarcity of his brain matter" in that he cannot come to grips that he is lost the election and is viewed as an embarrassment by most Americans. This award is very tightly linked to bush hating anti-American assholes.

Al - PLEASE RUN FOR PRESIDENT! We need a good laugh!

JOM

oh yeah...and there you have the "opposition"

as usual JoM produces NO facts to refute anything, just more mudslinging as opposed to reasonable discussion of differences...

and also, as usual...NO solution are ever forthcoming from those who adhere to that style of "politics"

do note, i'm unaware of anyone stating that humans are the ONLY cause of GW, rather the scientists involved state that Man's actions have just made the matter worse

big difference there

Excelsior?

Excelsior?

"Note the word choice... it ****may**** lead. They're making it up and they aren't hiding it very well."

I see. Now, it's not that they don't have a reason related to peace. It's just that you don't believe it's genuine. I wish you had made that known in your article, and I would have trusted my first instinct and just moved on. Hard to have a discussion with a closed mind.

"There is no proof...that GW exists."

Uh, the fact that you are alive proves it exists, BD. Global warming and man contributing to it in a dangerous way are two completely different things. Feel free to look it up unless you don't want the facts getting in the way of your opinion.

Al Gore didn't get an Oscar, guys. Linda Davis did.

And he got a seriously devalued Nobel Peace Prize whose income won't pay the yearly heating bill on one of his mansions.

That and the infamous CO-2 chart in "An Inconvenient Truth" will supply you with butt-wipe, but it doesn't help him convince those looking in vain for scientific method in his "Science."

Gonzo, I think a LOT of people would agree that promoting economic development in poor nations is one of the best ways to stop them from going to war.

The catch is that most of the efforts of governments and NGOs to promote economic development actually result in the funding of dictators and their regimes.

As for the prize itself, it ceased to have any meaning when they gave one to Yasser Arafat.

Dave

"The ad running on this article for a 'Nobel Peace Prize Ringtone' gave me a good laugh."

That's a Three 6 Mafia song, right?

Gonzo as ususal you fall in line with the rest of the Al G(wh)ore lunatics...

"I fart in your general direction!"

JOM

People in science, who read the scientific press, are almost 100% in accord with the GW hypothesis. But non-science people who read the popular press are 50-50.

Why is that so? Because popular journalists think it is more fair to give as much weight to skeptics as to supporters.

But, obviously, they are wrong.

Thus, non-scientists, like Clavos and his brethren on BC, are misled by their innocence of science matters. IMO they believe it is a simple political matter than can be decided by a vote.

Oh, I forgot to include a citation:

Science press vs. popular

I don't know. I still haven't forgiven Al Gore over the "Sore Loserman" debacle and he reminds me of Elmer Fudd. But I've been spent time living on both the west coast and east coast this year. On the West Coast, very cold weather extended far into the Spring. And for the first time in my ten years of being in California, there has been noticeable humidity. I've been on the East Coast since July. Hot, sticky, humid weather has been the norm in October - thought it has been nice the past couple days. This doesn't mean that I'm going to buy the new "Live Earth" CD, but come on, there are things to think about here.

"Thus, non-scientists, like Clavos and his brethren on BC, are misled by their innocence of science matters."

Not quite, bliffle. First I'm not as "innocent of science matters" as you allege, particularly in the science of meteorology, which because of my lifelong practice of going to sea in small boats, is a science discipline I have studied extensively for many years, literally as a matter of life and death.

Last year, I registered with, and requested from the IPCC a preview copy of the IPCC AR4 report (the one released earlier this year), and I later read the final published version, as well as the Summary for Policymakers.

The differences between the preview edition and the released version are startling, and even led to the resignation of Chris Landsea over the politicization of the Summary for Policymakers, which as you may know, is prepared by scientists but then submitted to and extensively edited by, lay government representatives.

This is the basis for my assertion that the whole issue is more political than scientific, and much of what I have read on the issue confirms that point.

I have read the books of some of the best known and most authoritative weather scientists in the world, on both sides of the GW issue, including the works of Chris Landsea, Bill Gray, Kerry Emanuel, Bjorn Lomborg, Peter Huber, Jack Hollander, Fred Singer, Henrik Svensmark, Dennis Avery, Max Mayfield and others.

So, bliffle I DO have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about; perhaps even more than you.

As I mentioned above, most of the more dire predictions regarding the possible short and long term effects of GW are based on computer models, which, in turn are dependent on the data and the way the data is compiled, organized and input for their calculations of predicted effects. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the compilation, organization and inputting of the data is not only critical to the model's outcome, but that those elements can be highly subjective and often are.

There is learned and authoritative disputation of the "consensus," and tragically, it is being marginalized, often for political reasons, by scientists and others who should know better.

bliffle:

from the article you cite in #31:

"Formed by the United Nations in 1990 and composed of the top scientists from around the globe, the IPCC employs a decision-by-consensus approach." (emphasis added)

"Consensus" has no role in empirical scientific method.

For the love of God anyone who says they have candy or lost a puppy or says they know the "truth" just say "No!"

Clav,

Keep in mind, though, that those who dispute GW likely have a political agenda as well.

Gore is certainly a politician. He has not claimed to be a scientist. He has become a spokesman, one who is known to many people, for the scientific community that supports the issue of global warming being affected by man.

How many medical and/or scientific studies, reports, etc., have been severely edited or altered by the Bushies over the last several years because the findings didn't jive with their politics?

It is very difficult for scientists to do their work and to get the results of their efforts out to the larger world owing to the meddling of politicians of all stripes. It's always been that way. Why? Because often the findings are, well, I guess you'd say that they amount to an "inconvenient truth," no?

Perhaps you could (if you haven't already) adjust your portfolio to reflect the current movement toward things "green." I'm sure there's money to be made there. And afer all, that's what is really important here, isn't it?

B-tone

B-ronius,

I find your line regarding Gore not having "earned" any of his achievements disingenuous at best.

I'm not a huge Al Gore fan, but he has accomplished a good deal in his life, including winning an election for president. How many votes have YOU gotten? He would likely be our president today if weren't for Willy's Oval Office blow jobs and/or republican voter fraud in Florida.

You tire of what you term Gore's left wing hypocracy. I tire of right wing condescension and sanctimony. You think you get points if you're greedy and admit it. Your god doesn't cotton to avarice any more than any other human failing.

B-tone

Baritone, I agree that Al Gore deserves some credit. Not so much for the global warming shilling - I give him little credit for being the frontman for a transparent power grab from the globalist elite - but certainly for his role in encouraging the development of the internet, which is probably a more appropriate thing to get a Nobel prize for anyway.

However, let's be honest about the election in Florida in 2000. The reason Gore didn't pursue the issue is that he couldn't afford to have the massive Democratic fraud looked into not only there, but nationwide. Admittedly, the 2000 fraud probably wasn't as massive as the unprecedented nationwide fraud and intimidation practiced by Democrats in 2004, but i guarantee Gore knew better than to look under that rock.

Dave

Sounds like Clavos' map reading will qualify him as a navigator, just like any teenager paddling a canoe in the Canadian wilderness, but it doesn't make him a scientist. In fact, he sounds anti-scientist in that he seeks to rationalize his own precept rather than search for truth and go where the evidence leads.

Clavos is more like a scandal monger, pawing through old newspaper clippings in the news morgue looking for the goods on his Hated Enemy.

This is the most contrived political explanation I've seen in many years:

"However, let's be honest about the election in Florida in 2000. The reason Gore didn't pursue the issue is that he couldn't afford to have the massive Democratic fraud looked into not only there, but nationwide."

Huh? Sez who?

You're joking, right? The first convictions for election law violations in 2000 were Democrats. Remember the slashed tired in Wisconsin? Remember the rounding up of homeless people and paying them off to vote (Democrat). It's well known that our current voter registration system was designed with one objective in mind, to make voter fraud as easy as possible.

And while not 2000, we can take a look at Washington State governors race which was the most obvious and transparent case of voter fraud ever.

"rationalize his own precept rather than search for truth and go where the evidence leads."

Sounds alot like the alarmists which come mostly from the political left. They believe government should be in control of industry. Their answer in the face of GW, put government in control of industry. Holy fucking coincidences batman.

I'm not under some impression that we live in a god given perfect climate right now. A couple degrees one way or the other with a hundred or more years to adapt isn't anywhere near the greatest threat mankind faces. For every acre that gets too hot to support growth another acre farther north will have a longer growing season or be defrosted. For all the excess heat related deaths we'll have decreases in cold related ones.

Why then does science show us otherwise? Because that's what they get paid to do. Studies are sent out to find the negative effects of global warming. A recent headline was about the number of extra heat deaths to expect in New York from GW. Where was the study regarding the decrease in cold related illnesses and death?

The only 'solution' to change that is I find reasonable is to use the new inevitable GW tax only for the purposes of developing new sources of energy. That is what skeptics should push for.

I wish the tax would be used for good, it won't be. It'll be taken and skimmed, some transfered to corrupt politician's, most handed to suits in big eco-business, and the scraps thrown to the third world poor to alleviate the guilt of the elites.

Dave,

Of course the Reps were totally pure. Bullshit! Had they been so lilly white and sure of their winning, they could have easily stepped aside and allowed for a complete recount. How many rocks do you suppose they wanted left unturned?

B-tone

To be fair to the environmentalist crowd there is something to be said about controlling waste (in capitalist terms "economic inefficiencies") and pollution (in a capitalist terms "externalizating costs"), but in our current all-or-nothing style of political debate, you can't even recognize the good points the other side may have because you're too busy painting them as the supreme evil. GW gets all sorts of crap about not signing Kyoto when (1) Europe has never lived up to its terms and (2) Bush said he *would* sign it, if it treated all nations equally which would make much more environmental sense. Why does China need a free pass on the environment again?

But to the critics who keep saying this is about peace through some metaphysical trickery... the peace prize has always been about concrete actions to stop or respond to real wars, deal with actual human rights, so on. It has never been awarded based on a theoretical that X persons actions MIGHT pervent war at some future time based on conditions we know nothing about. If you want to award him for his climate work, that's fine, but it's not about peace, its about the environment, and the Nobel committee has said they care more about trees than people with this award.

Can it be people still harp about 2000? Yawn-ville. The fact is that Gore should have won that election by a landslide but he alone lost it. It should have never been that close.

Stewing in the past as a means to assuage a perceived injustice is a losers mentality.

Ever watch a sport and a team loses on a close disputed call? The fans will naturally (and sometimes justifiably) cry foul - in some cases they'll do so for years. Yet, more often than not the team failed to take advantage of the opportunities accorded to them during the game. They failed to capitalize.

That's what probably happened to Gore.

Personally, "Awards" and "Prizes" are suspiciously (and ridiculously overt in some cases) political now.

That said, Al "Do as I say not as I do" Gore deserves credit for at least offering a possible solution to a problem. In this light, he is immensely far more credible than Michael Moore.

Personally, and this is just me, his "Footprint" will probably find its way to the forests of British Columbia where Big Foot lives. Time will tell if the science will be proven true or turn to an urban myth.

I can't take any of what the writer says seriously.

Why?

Because he is too lazy to even check if his basic point--that this is the first time the Nobel Prize for Peace has nothing to do with peace--is true.

Last year the prize went to Muhammad Yunus, Green Bank and in 2004 to a woman from East Africa for her work in reforestration. Two examples.

When you folks are all kicking each other in the pants--will not say ballls as I have yet to see evidence of same by any posters on this site--for the last standing place on Iceberg Earth, remember that fighting is not war and that working to save the last remnants of the planet has nothing to do with peace.

Fools.

Of course the Reps were totally pure. Bullshit! Had they been so lilly white and sure of their winning, they could have easily stepped aside and allowed for a complete recount. How many rocks do you suppose they wanted left unturned?

There were multiple recounts, B-tone. At some point you have to draw the line.

As for Republican abuse in 2000, it followed the traditional pattern. The GOP attempted to buy the election through spending on advertising. The Dems as always tried to buy it more directly by bribing voters or arranging for through loyalist groups to commit organized fraud.

But like I said, nothing compared to the massive Democrat fraud in 2004.

Dave

Massive democrat fraud in 2004???

Never heard about it, Dave--which is very odd considering I ALWAYS hear about everything way before you do.

Must have been another one of those chunks of cement coming loose in your head.

Moonraven-

While you were busy checking my facts you missed facts I presented in comment #11 specifically regarding the 2004 award.

Dave,

As much as it pains me, I have to agree with Moon. Just what democratic fraud are you talking about? I'm sure, as always, you have all the facts and figures at hand.

Just as I said, though. You characterize the republicans as righteous and the dems as fraudulent bastards. It never fails. Perhaps you need to get out more, you know, step away from your keyboard for maybe ten minutes or so.

B-tone

Baritone, I can understand Moonraven being uninformed since she's outside the country, but you're relatively in touch with the net so you ought to be able to get hold of news which the MSM isn't sharing with you. Do a search on Google for ACORN and 'vote buying' to get info on the 15 democratic operatives indicted in a number of different states over vote buying, and that's just from one organization.

A good starting point for the fraud in florida in 2000 is "Fraud Factor. It doesn't have much info on the really massive fraud in Missouri in 2000, but that's available elsewhere on the net.

For 2004 you should look into the ACORN cases, or some of those linked to on this site. The patterns of methods of fraud used are so consistent that it's clear that there was some sort of central coordination.

And keep this in mind, because Bush won, the media basically only gave any exposure to accusations against Republicans while overlooking the enormous amount of systematic fraud committed by democrats. Since it didn't end up winning them the election it was deemed not newsworthy, while bogus claims of Republican fraud like the totally untrue 'voter intimidation' claims got lots of press coverage. But quietly behind the scenes, the truth is there - with scores of democrats indicted for election fraud in 2000 and 2004 and virtually no indictments of Republicans.

Dave

If one of the Scandinavian parliaments that hand these things out wanted to give Al Gore a Nobel prize in science for his work in global warming, this I could understand - even if I disagreed with it doing so.

Giving Al Gore a peace prize is the equivalent of giving Yasser Arafat a peace prize As we say in Hebrew, ein késher - there is no connection, logical or otherwise. Arafat was a terrorist whose specialties were murder and screwing little boys; Gore is a politician who is hustling around in the politics of climate change.

Of course, the stupid pricks in Oslo (or was it Stockholm?) gave Arafat a peace prize, didn't they? - along with Peres (another murderer) and the martyred Rabin, who, at least in the month before he died, became a patriot who gave a damn for his country by trying to get rid or the Oslo Accords....

The "peace" prize has just become a "piss" prize. Let me just tug at my zipper here and start the process flowing....

and virtually no indictments of Republicans

does the number three equal zero?

yes, i know it was 2002.

see, this is exactly why we get the government we deserve....because the level of 'discourse' never seems to rise above all of this bogus poo-flinging.

when you treat half of the population as beneath you, both morally and intellectually, you get the goverment you ask for.

pathetic. all of it.

"when you treat half of the population as beneath you, both morally and intellectually, you get the goverment you ask for. "

Quoted for Truth

nuff said...

Excelsior?

To the writer and commenters having a mass conniption at the notion of Al Gore getting a Nobel Peace Prize:

Yes, it kind of is past the season for good grapes.

John,

I couldn't care less about your comment in number 11.

The first rule of writing a piece is to SAY WHAT YOU MEAN and SAY IT COMPLETELY.

You don't get rebuttals.

[Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

And for the rest of you clowns:

Which one of you [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor] received an Oscar and Nobel Prize in the same year--7 years after being elected US President.

[Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

Nalle: If the dems had committed MASSIVE fraud in 2004--they would have WON.

[Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]
And documentation if PROOF, baldy--not OPINION.

[Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

I couldn't care less about the democrats OR the other brnads of bullshitting parasites in Gringolandia.

[Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

Mark, I was talking specifically about presidential elections. No question there's some abuse on both sides, but historically it has been the dems who have engaged in most of the election fraud.

Dave

Dave, you've picked a lousy hill to defend. We can speculate about election fraud forever. And it doesn't matter that the 2000 Florida results have been tallied more times than any other election in history. What matters is that the certified count went for Bush. No do-overs. One side lost.

In a close race, that means about half the people voted for the loser. That doesn't make the loser any less of a loser. And it only makes their dissatisfaction worse to speculate on what ifs. If we didn't have the electoral college, every single thing that's happened in contemporary politics would have been different.

Great column.

They really ought to just rename the "Nobel Peace Prize" as the Leftist/Terrorist/Anti-American/Internationalist of the Year Award, or something similar.

I mean, let's see here...Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Yasser Arafat, Henry Kissinger, Nelson Mandela. Three were leftists, at least one (and as many as three) were terrorists, two or three were anti-American, and I think it's safe to say that four were internationalists.

But peace-makers? Carter can make a case, although that all occurred about 30 years before he actually won the award. Kissinger and Arafat were more known for bloodshed than peace. Mandela arguably helped bring peace, but his supporters often used violent means. And Al Gore has absolutely nothing to do with bringing peace, whatsoever, other than the fact that, as a private citizen, he publicly opposed the Iraq War.

The "Nobel Peace Prize" is a bogus sham. All reasonable people realize this now, if they didn't before.

Baritone, I didn't say those things about Gore (at least on this board). I don't think of Gore as a hypocrite. I don't think his relationship with truth and reality is that straightforward. Gore seems to change his politics every few years in a way I can't explain. He was a peacenik in the 80's and a militarist in the 90's. He was pro-life then pro-choice. He's a tobacco farmer one year, and fights big tobacco the next. And sure, those seem like common flip-flops, but Gore actually seems to believe that he never was what he used to be. He latches onto issues so strongly that he thinks he's the leader on them.

It probably shouldn't creep me out so much, but there's that thing he does with his accents. It's like he's been so processed by political handlers that he doesn't know who he really is. Maybe he is just a liar and hypocrite, but I think there's something else going on.

Re: the exaggerated nonsense about massive, centrally coordinated Democratic election fraud in 2004: I am now learning to discount anything Dave Nalle writes about the Democratic party by at least 75%. Anything John Bambenek writes about Democrats, discount by about 98%.

Both of our fearless political editors are blatantly biased and prone to exaggeration and very selective citation of 'facts' and highly questionable numbers when criticizing non-Republicans. And when confronted, they deny it, saying they are only writing 'the simple truth.' Appalling. Shameful.

I have never heard Henry Kissinger called a leftist before. But RJ often seems to be looking through the wrong end of a telescope when he writes his tunnel-vision, Limbaughist dumb one-liner opinions.

handy, you just need to pay closer attention to the words I use and not confuse what I say about leftists, progressives and democrats which are three distinctly different groups.

But the ultimate truth is that however much you discount what I write, it makes it no less true, it just puts you that much in denial.

Dave

If you genuinely believe everything you write is 'true,' then I'm not the only one 'in denial.' Most of what you write is subjective opinion, not objective 'truth.' And you know it. Why you stubbornly claim otherwise is your problem, not mine.

handyguy:

I haven't read all the comments here, so I don't know exactly what you're referring to in comment #61.

But it is a fact that Democrat activists tried to buy the votes of homeless people in Wisconsin in 2000 with packs of cigarettes. And it's a fact that Democrat activists in 2004 vandalized (and rendered temporarily unusable) cars in Wisconsin on Election Day that were intended to be used in the Republican GOTV effort. And it's also a fact that quite a large number of dead people voted (some, multiple times) in Chicago, Illinois and Texas in 1960, helping JFK win a very close election.

Simply stated, Democrats have a much longer track record of trying to steal elections than Republicans do. Loretta Sanchez probably stole a Congressional seat in 1996 thanks to the votes of illegal immigrants, for example.

And Al Gore certainly tried to use the laughable rulings of the Democrat-dominated Florida Supreme Court to steal Florida's Electoral Votes in 2000. Thankfully, the United States Supreme Court swatted that down, first unanimously, and then a second time, by a vote of 7-2. (You'll of course claim that the later vote was 5-4, not 7-2, because you either don't understand the issues of contention, or you don't care.)

I have never heard Henry Kissinger called a leftist before. But RJ often seems to be looking through the wrong end of a telescope when he writes his tunnel-vision, Limbaughist dumb one-liner opinions.

I didn't say he was. Please re-read what I wrote:

"Three were leftists"

Three out of the five I mentioned. That doesn't mean I was including Kissinger.

Lern 2 reed.

RJ...it looks like you picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue...

BOTH parties have tried to "steal" elections since their inception...ALL political machines have tried to do so whenever possible...being blind to one doing it while lambasting the other (and please feel free to link to the Court decisions finding folks guilty to support your claims) doesn't help strengthen the case for the validity of your tirade

i'm trying to help there, bud

Excelsior?

please feel free to link to the Court decisions finding folks guilty to support your claims

Sigh...

Why do you even bother challenging me, gm?

And another...

thanks for the linkages, RJ

you rightly point out a handful of criminals who got what they deserved....jail

now..are you just as outraged when someone from the GOP does it? are you just as satisfied when they go to jail?

me, i think ALL such criminals belong in prison on felony charges...don't care which political gan they belong to

how about you?

and do you think incidents such as those isolated criminal instances constitute some kind of grand conspiratorial scheme?

or are they just a fraction of the political process on both sides, usually made up of tiny batches of criminals?

Excelsior?

Or is every damn one of 'em (Dem, Rep, or Ind/other) an incipient, if not actual, criminal?

@ #71 - i doubt it's every one..i'm pretty certain there is a good portion trying to do the right thing as much as they can....a larger percentage who cave to the lobby/money interests while whoring themselves on the campaign trail...

and those that willingly and knowingly seek the Corruption, for Money, or Power...or both

the Trick would be in the rank and file of both political gangs holding those pigfuckers accountable...

but as History has shown us (even recent history of the last 20 years), the Corrupt hold the reigns and have managed to protect themselves and insulate their practices from exposure and prosecution

they can do this because of the mindless followers who buy into the dog and pony show, who forgo critical Thinking in favor of partisan bullshit

Excelsior

I'm not so worried about the corrupt and the partisan. They're a minor threat. I'm concerned about the people who think that the wrong thing IS the right thing.

Dave

stay away from mirrors then, Vox...

Excelsior?

So you think individual liberty and minimal government are bad, Gonzo. Well, that explains a hell of a lot.

Dave

more bullshit from Vox...

do please cite an instance where i have ever said such a thing

are you completely incapable of rational discussion..or do you just like mudslinging an attempted character assassination rather than problem solving?

your own words explain quite a bit, i am not as delusional as your belief in your mind reading abilities

so..when you wan to toss out such accusation...show yer fucking Proof...because your assertions don't mean shit, due to your own words...which i cite and Quote when needed

diaf, Vox

Excelsior?

do please cite an instance where i have ever said such a thing

I was responding to #74, Gonzo. Scroll up.

I said "I'm concerned about the people who think that the wrong thing IS the right thing"

You said: "stay away from mirrors then"

Since I believe in individual liberty and limited government and you said that I believe in the wrong thing, then I can only conclude that you think that individual liberty and limited government are the wrong thing.

How hard is that for you to follow?

are you completely incapable of rational discussion..or do you just like mudslinging an attempted character assassination rather than problem solving?

I'm not the one here calling every honest statement 'bullshit'.

so..when you wan to toss out such accusation...show yer fucking Proof...

Proof shown, in your own words. Maybe you should pick them more carefully.

Dave

it appears you didn't get it

my snark about staying away from mirrors came form the thought that YOU are one of those who think the Wrong things are correct in some instances

your "proof" is refuted, and you fail basic Humor 101

don't you ever get tired of being the yard bitch?

Excelsior?

That whole exchange, gentlemen, sounded like neither one of you got what the other was saying.

Which is funny, because I got both of you no problem.

Chill, guys....

It's just pixels.

well do i know it's just pixels...

i give a high probability that it's all about being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to provoke

or there could be some delusional behavior involved (i leave it up to the Readers to decide where that resides)

for #79

Excelsior?

I'm not even sure I know what the 'yard bitch' is, Gonzo. Is it something you learn about in prison?

BTW, you're really not very good at impersonating Don Rickles.

Dave

no impersonations required...i'm my own kind of Freak

this says it all...

nuff said

Excelsior?

Handy, you and I must have hung out in different circles in the 70's. I heard Kissinger called a leftist more than once.

That video says mostly that you have terrible taste in music. I offer you this alternative.

dave

showing your lack of Knowledge in some areas....

there are somethings you just don't do in Music...like Americans faking British accents

or attempting to cover Black Sabbath, as well as some other bands...or wear your own band t-shirt on stage...

but i digress

Excelsior?

for the record: love Kaki King, love The Dickies, can't stand Tool.

Interesting discussion. I'm really sorry to interrupt, but I have to mention that it is improbable that Vaclav Klaus is the president of Czechoslovakia, given that this country has ceased to exist about 15 years ago. Mr. Klaus is thus the president of the Czech Republic.

Whatever happened to Vaclav Havel, anyway? And why didn't they split Czechoslovakia back into Bohemia and Moravia to avoid confusion?

Dave

A lot of the early climate figures aren't exactly spot-on accurate either. The temperature differences from way back then and now could be accounted by a sampling error of plus one. A sampling error of plus two or more would reverse the "scientific" dooms-day scenario completely.

And is it just them, or is new iceberg formation not even a part of the discussion here?

Anyway, to Al Gore I say you go girl. We can change the world if we try!

"And is it just them, or is new iceberg formation not even a part of the discussion here?"

Actually, I did, albeit briefly, in comment #4:

"Last week, those same scientists invited a group of journalists and others to Greenland to observe a glacier melting and falling into the sea at a fairly rapid clip. Everyone oohed and aahed, and rushed to file their stories about the pernicious effects of GW, which flooded (pun intended) the media for several days.

However, the scientists did NOT show the journalists the similar glacier not far away that is actually adding ice, and growing."

for #90 - it seems you might have missed these verifiable Facts about the Issue

just sharing...

for Consideration - not even saying Man is the sole cause of the apparent problem...however, if the foibles of Man are indeed even partially responsible, and we can do something positive to respond to the possible bad effects...

why not put forward effort to decrease whatever ill effects we are contributing to?

Excelsior?

#76 - LOL! I don't know whether to laugh or to cry, so I'll just shake my head...

#77 - Thanks for clearing up gm's "confusion" so I didn't have to...

Congratulations to Al Gore for the prize and all his contributions to peace - the Internet, Current TV, Global Warming, etc.

But hey, where is the Supreme Court when you need them? Certainly the darkness brought to the world by George Bush deserves a lot of credit for the mobilization against global warming.

@#91:

Don't misunderstand me, gonzo. I'm not trying to say that there's no melting going on, much less that GW isn't happening; I'm addressing the obvious lack of any news that is not in line with the gospel of the Church of Global Warming and the pontifications of its Pope.

"why not put forward effort to decrease whatever ill effects we are contributing to?"

I'm all for that, but not if it's not cost effective. Our first question of each proposal to reduce carbon footprints should be:

At how much cost?

At this point, most schemes to reduce carbon in the atmosphere involve some form of cap-and-trade program. Some authors are leery of the effectiveness, and in particular of the cost benefits to be obtained thereby.

Here is an interesting article, published by the Manhattan Institute in New York's City Journal. The article is too long to post here, but it concludes:

"If America's politicians and corporate leaders truly believe that much of the world will suffer irrevocable damage from climate change within the next century, then obviously we should try to stop it. But the first step shouldn't be a feel-good cap-and-trade regime. Federal, state, and local government should instead work together to remove all obstacles that prevent private companies from building new nuclear power plants, since it's foolish not to take immediate advantage of a proven, cost-competitive alternative to dirty coal.

After taking that obvious step, pols and business leaders should do a gut check. Are they so certain of the catastrophic effects of climate change that they would support a straightforward emissions tax, rather than a carbon cap-and-trade program that (deceptively) seems so easy? After all, strip away the rhetoric about cap and trade, and it would have the same effect as a tonnage tax on carbon emissions: making such emissions more expensive; discouraging carbon-intensive power generation; and allowing the market to decide which environmentally friendlier technologies--solar, wind, what have you--would be competitive enough to take its place.

The pols and business leaders could suggest that America gradually impose such a tax, one that's high enough within a decade to encourage industries and consumers to switch permanently to cleaner technology. A tax would mean higher power prices, too, but at least it wouldn't mean directly subsidizing competitors abroad. And the feds could use the tax's revenue to reduce taxes elsewhere in the economy--perhaps cutting dividend and capital-gains taxes further, to encourage the massive private investment needed to build the next generation of power generators. Nor would a tax create a new multibillion-dollar global commodity whose value could depend on political manipulation in dark corners of the world.

If it's true that a consensus about global warming really exists, not just in press releases and on op-ed pages but in the back rooms of power, too, the politicians and the business leaders wouldn't be afraid to suggest such a tax. They would insist on it."

As long as it makes economic sense, I agree that we should be pursuing such goals as alternative, renewable fuels if for no other reason than for the benefit of eliminating our dependence on the sheiks.

Thanks to the popularity of the Pope of GW's movie, the whole world is convinced that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the prime cause of global warming. Yet, there is substantial scientific evidence that the world has undergone cycles of warming that can last upwards of 1500 years every several millenia.

The evidence (from ice cores) also indicates that these cycles have been occurring for a minimum tens of thousands of years. Further, the evidence indicates that the increase in greenhouse gases tends to trail the warming periods, leading to the conclusion that greenhouse gases are the result, not the cause of GW.

From Science Daily:

"Russian scientists have analyzed changes occurred within the past 5, 20, and 100 thousand years and established that each warming is associated with the same behaviour of greenhouse gases: temperature rises firstly, and the concentration of greenhouse gases begins to increase later, with a lag of several thousand years. The growth of gases concentration is faster than that of temperature and soon outruns the latter. With a turn from warming to the next phase of cooling, the concentration of greenhouse gases inertially grows for a while. Then their concentration begins to decrease, which soon gets faster than the temperature decrease. This tendency progresses until glaciation phase that closes each climatic cycle."

I have an instinctive aversion to concepts that everybody adopts and endorses.

As long as it makes economic sense, writes ole clavos.

Yet his expertise in economic sense means he can't even get a credit card?

Give me a break.

In fact, give the world a break.

Heh.

I just saw the ultimate in revisionist history that some jackass wrote: Kissinger is a leftist.

Right.

He was right up there giving a blow job to Salvador Allende in 1973--not financing the coup that overthrew his government.

How soon we forget about his boss, that bigtime Maoist, head of the Sendero Luminoso and the Republican Party: Richard Nixon--you know, the guy who insisted that a Vietnamese flag be sraped across his coffin.

Wow, you folks have been doing a TON of crystal meth on this site.

Kissinger, even as I type, is whistling the Internationale!

Just for all you irrational, envious GUILT AS SIN rightwing shills, an EXCERPT from today's New York Times--article by Paul Krugman:

"On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal's editors couldn't even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore's name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.

And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with "that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore's stance." You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change - therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it's a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job - to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda's recruiters could have hoped for - the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the "ozone man," but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, "the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam." And so it has proved."

So, swamp rats and company, pick your poison: Envy, Guilt, Just plain cussedness....

Moonraven quotes Krugman about Gore. That's a trio of clear thinkers right there.

Rudimentary...

I don't know about you, but I don't return to sites I deem 'pathetic'* day after day after day after day after...

So who's pathetic, exactly?


_{* And they're out there in spades, believe you me.}

I knew that, Doc. It WAS a typo. Really

"But hey, where is the Supreme Court when you need them?"

I heard that the Supreme Court ruled that the Nobel Prize must be awarded to George Bush rather than Al Gore.

Good to know that they're on the job!

Rendering Originalist decisions rebutting those Actvist Judges in Stockholm.

It must be a recently passed amedment to Murphy's Law that the incidents of typos increazes in direct propportion to the writer's angxiety to smasck down someone else's poor wirting?

Why haven't we heard about it? Does it have the reqiusite aproval from three-foruths of the steaks?

ROFL, Doc!

Oh damn! I missed a great oppportunityy thayr....

Paul Krugman's article is right on, no matter what overwrought Latin American bird is doing the quoting.

Global warming is yet another issue that shouldn't by logic divide so neatly into Left and Right positions. The fact that it does ought to cast suspicion on many of the opinions being expressed on both sides.

That being said, however...

Assuming Al Gore is not running for office again, I'm not sure what hidden, nefarious political purpose his advocacy is supposed to demonstrate. The man seems sincerely to believe this is an urgent issue. You may not agree. But it doesn't logically and automatically follow that political attacks on him are valid.

Those attacks are just spilling over from the Right's general contempt for Gore. He's Al Gore; therefore anything he says or does must be bogus. That's the point of Krugman's op-ed today. And he's right: this kind of ad hominem silliness will never get anyone anywhere.

OK, Handy, on your recommendation I read Krugman's article, and I wasn't impressed. Krugman is as bitter a partisan as I've ever read, never moreso when he denounces partisanship. But he clumsily plagarizes an interesting point. Why is Gore so hated by the Right?

For me, there are three reasons. One, I remember Gore practically offering his apologies for serving in Vietnam. Two, I know two people who had personal encounters with Gore, in which he was obnoxious and ill-informed. Three, he tried to steal the presidency. Darn it, I have to mention his speech praising Clinton the day he was impeached.

It's that attempted coup that bothers most of us. He pushed his claim as far as he could through the relevent courts, then to the Florida legislature (which had no authority in the matter), then to the Supreme Court twice. He lost in every count in Florida, but kept pushing. Even if you believe he had a good claim to the presidency, he's continued to encourage the idea that he should have won, and that's irresponsible. He puts himself before the country.

Exactly dead wrong HG. Environmentalism is a non-partisan issue because it arises out of real concern for people and the planet, but global warming is political in origin and used mainly to advance a political agenda. It lacks any kind of common sense application. So people react to it politically.

What political agenda? Enlighten us, please. Be specific. Whom does it benefit? Whom does it harm? Is there no middle ground at all?

Paul Krugman, eloquent and impassioned as he is, certainly is also ideological and partisan. He does not pretend otherwise. But he could be described as 'bitter' only by someone who is the same, from the opposite perspective: a bitter partisan of the right.

Baronius's description of Gore's supposed perfidy in the 2000 election aftermath is probably the most 'bitterly partisan' I've ever read. That election will remain a sore point for both sides, of course. But most of the many millions of Gore voters wanted the matter pursued at the time. It wasn't just the VP's own wishes that were being considered, and to imply that does a disservice to those 50 million Americans [500,000 more than there were Bush voters, also not an irrelevant fact]. And the hardball tactics and rhetoric used by Bush's legal team at the time will not go down as the classiest in history, either.

"...Those attacks are just spilling over from the Right's general contempt for Gore. He's Al Gore; therefore anything he says or does must be bogus. That's the point of Krugman's op-ed today. And he's right: this kind of ad hominem silliness will never get anyone anywhere."

But it does get short-term success for them, which is why they keep doing it. What's funny is that they just can't seem to stop. It's been a long time since they successfully defamed Clinton, Gore and Kerry, but it wasn't cathartic: they still keep on doing it. Maybe they're addicted to verbal violence.

John, the word "first" in the title is probably misplaced.

Handy, yes, I'm bitterly partisan. That doesn't make Krugman any less of a hack.

The total popular vote is completely irrelevant. You know better than to say otherwise. It isn't like Bush found a loophole in the Constitution. He beat Gore, and Gore's people kept coming up with new recount methods, and Bush won all of them.

Gore supporters seem to think they have a monopoly on indignation. I'm still angry that Gore kept trying to "win" the election after it was clear he lost. Look at it from our side: Gore tried to do what many Democrats accuse Bush of having done.

I'm just lazy enough to not cut and paste the chronology of the election from Wikipedia. If anyone wants to look it up, it's there. It seems like memories are fading of how Gore lost and lost and lost.

Al Gore's Nine Lies - An Inconvenient Truth:

-The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

-The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

-The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

-The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

-The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

-The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

-The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

-The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

-The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

How could Gore miss the biggest cause of all for Global Warming?

All that hot gas Rush Limbaugh's giving off...

How could Gwhore miss the biggest cause of all for Global Warming?

Because its hard for Gwhore to see or think clearly when he is in the back of an SUV limo (getting 6 miles per gallon) stuffing his face with burgers and nachos while masturbating on the Nobel Peace Prize!

It really is quite simple...

JOM

Actions speak louder than words.

Nine points out of how many in the whole film?

PERSPECTIVE, people.

Stop clutching at straws. They won't keep you from drowning.

Yes, Doc, perspective.

Nine points which underpin much of the hyperbolic predictions of the supposed effects of GW, which effects have even been refuted by IPCC members.

And one of the nine is literally the central underpinning of the whole GW controversy regarding how much of GW is anthropogenic:

"-The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years."

And these are important flaws in terms of defining probable future effects of GW:

"-The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

"-The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration."

Perspective, indeed.

What I meant by 'perspective' is that the New Party challenged certain factual claims in An Inconvenient Truth in court. Perhaps I should have thrown 'motivation' in there.

The court's motivation was to consider the challenged claims, and only those claims, on their merits - not to pronounce on the existence or not of global warming*.

The New Party's motivation was clearly to 'cherry-pick' the film - to get a 'gotcha!' As if, by pointing out a few factual errors, they could somehow disprove the entire thesis of global warming.

It's not clear from the piece cited by RJ if those were the only ones considered by the court, or if there were others that did pass legal muster. What is certain is that the movie makes far more than nine points. That's the perspective I'm talking about.


_{* Sorry, I can't bring myself to adopt the shorthand 'GW' for global warming. It's just too unsettling - can't quite put my finger on why, though... ;-)}

Who says that those 9 points are wrong?

Where can I read about it. Other than the unceasing neocon noise machine, I mean. Any scientific journals?

bliffle, thanks. You reminded me of another point I meant to make in my last comment, viz.:

Trial evidence is not scientific evidence. Judges and jurors are not scientists. Legal truth is not empirical truth. While the two do sometimes intersect, they are not the same.

So a court ruling that a film contains factual inaccuracies does not make it so.

It just makes the Gore-haters soooo mad to be on the losing side of this argument. Here in the unreal echo chamber of the blogosphere they can convince themselves they're right and that they have successfully discredited Al Gore. But the inconvenient truth is that in the real world he's now more widely admired than ever.

It would be poetic justice if he were elected president next year, unlikely as that now seems. It does make me smile to think of the expressions on the faces of all the formerly smirking, wisecracking dittoheads if that were to happen.

"It just makes the Gore-haters soooo mad to be on the losing side of this argument."

1. I'm not a gore hater. I'm a conservative/libertarian and he's a liberal, so I disagree with him on most political issues, including GW, but not on most social issues.

2. I won't, however, reduce my "carbon footprint" just because he says I should; particularly in light of the number and size of his abodes, and because I'm convinced that he has based his conclusions on faulty information and questionable computer models.

3. There is no "winning" or "losing" side to the "argument," which is actually a discussion. Nothing I've seen in all the reading I've done on the subject (and, because meteorology and climate science have been interests of mine for many years, I've done a lot of reading on the subject) has convinced me that the bulk of GW is anthropogenic.

4. I continue to oppose measures to cut "greenhouse gases" that are not fiscally sound or are unfavorable to the US while giving other nations a pass.

5. I strongly support R&D into alternative, renewable fuels. Reaching a point where we can tell the likes of the Al-Saud family and Hugo Chavez to get lost should be a primary goal on the order of Kennedy's push to put a man on the moon, with all necessary funds and resources allocated immediately.

If that's "losing," fine; call it what you want.

"It would be poetic justice if he were elected president next year, unlikely as that now seems. It does make me smile to think of the expressions on the faces of all the formerly smirking, wisecracking dittoheads if that were to happen."

Al Gore as a pure redemption story would be remarkable. The world of sports lives for these same stories (Rick Ankiel, New Orleans Saints, Colorado Rockies, Phil Mickelson) because they "silence their critics" with their on-the-field action and a change in their approach. And those very critics are usually happy to see them succeed after seeing them suck.

And yes, it'd be a big bowl of Schadenfreude served cold to the anti-Gore crowd were he to be elected, but isn't that basically case for whoever wins the 2008 throne?

The question is this: have Gore's supporters/followers reduced THEIR imprints yet?

Gore is likely to have a minimal impact on the environment/peace in our time. By this logic, the Nobel Peace prize has now left itself open to the "idea" and "theory" of peace as opposed to concrete action and results.

Just to clarify, I meant the losing side of this article's argument, that Gore's Nobel is a bad joke. Almost no one outside of the furthest-right 10-20% or so of the population would buy it as a reasonable point of view. So have your fun, boys, for all the good it will do you.

I love the general postmodern cynicism about science that's become such a political tool these days. It shows how something traditionally anti-authoritarian and leftist -- postmodern critique -- has reversed into a conservative tool.

Scientists aren't traditionally partisan about their work, and to claim that their consensus is a knee-jerk political instinct is a clear sign of denial and confirmation bias. Research, both in universities and in private organizations, is painstakingly systematic and runs according to some long-critiqued and established principles. True, there are slip-ups... a Canadian pharmaceutical lab recently found fudging all its findings... but they're targeted and torn apart by the industries that employ them, because the whole institution is based on record-keeping and rock-solid verifiability.

Simulations aren't automatically discredited because they're "computer models." The vast majority of science -- the intersection of theory and observation -- is based on models built to explain the observable evidence.

Finally, as much as your personal belief that global warming doesn't exist may have some validity, you can't simply dismiss the accepted science as misguided consensus. The scientific community didn't just arbitrarily come to a consensus on global warming -- their nearly-unanimous agreement is based on a long process of systematic hypothesis, critique, and counter-hypothesis.

That's why it should be very important to us, as laypeople, that the scientific community breaks down so differently from popular opinion and political loyalty. If this was Galileo's age (an analogy all you anti-intellectuals seem intent on making), all scientists would be saying that Global Warming is a myth, because they would have to agree with the primary authority or be threatened with execution. At this point in history, science has to hold its opinions in opposition to public convenience, state authority, and private and industrial interests.

Even in the cynical age, some institutions deserve respect.

To follow up, re: Science: if you want a sampling of serious, productive debate, non-political, wherein this controversy actually makes some sense, glance at this one: IOP Policy Brief.

To follow up, re: Nobel prize: I'm skeptical of Gore's award, as well. It seems to me that the Nobel is drifting more and more into celebrity territory, rewarding people for their power over publicity. I agree that perhaps it should go to the silent devotees of humanitarian causes, who deserve the recognition and don't prompt an avalanche of political rhetoric. It's just more American Hollywood drivel taking over the global worldview, in my semi-polite opinion.

Oh, well. It's also just an award. More absurd and frivolous things have been perpetrated than a misplaced Nobel Peace Prize.

Nobel Peace Prize: NEW Global Warming Antiperspirant

AP - Al Gore has for a long time been full of hot air. He has a vivid imagination about the world around him. His inherent mistrust of the seasons seems to stem from an episode of the Twilight Zone, in which the Earth gets too close to the Sun. Summers are hot & sticky, and Al is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures needed to create a more effective global deodorant.

If college roommate, Tommy Lee Jones, could save the City of Los Angeles from errant magma (Volcano), and the world entire from a giant cockroach (Men In Black), then certainly Al Gore deserves a prize for his global initiative to combat global wetness. The same active ingredient and trusted formula that kept our leaders dry during the Cold War - now in unscented. As the planet heats up, you don't have to! Clinton tested: guaranteed to leave no trace.

Now that Global Warming has been legitimized, a "private group" out of Monterey California of all places, wants to seed the North Atlantic with iron oxide pellets, to help plankton absorb carbon dioxide (greenhouse gasses). Strategy: "cleanup the planet and make a buck on the side." Another inconvenient truth: how these Bolshevik's misguided scam to pirate the "Peace Dividend," sparked the worst terrorist attacks on United States soil.

Ps. I like a good spoof, but I also know the facts; and the facts are incontrovertible.

4. I continue to oppose measures to cut "greenhouse gases" that are not fiscally sound or are unfavorable to the US while giving other nations a pass.

5. I strongly support R&D into alternative, renewable fuels. Reaching a point where we can tell the likes of the Al-Saud family and Hugo Chavez to get lost should be a primary goal on the order of Kennedy's push to put a man on the moon, with all necessary funds and resources allocated immediately.

Ditto.

I also strongly support the proposed Cape Cod windmills...which, oddly enough, the Kennedys don't... ;-)

I love the general postmodern cynicism about science that's become such a political tool these days.

But cynicism and skepticism ARE what science is about.

Scientists aren't traditionally partisan about their work,

Wow, you don't know many academic scientists, do you.


The scientific community didn't just arbitrarily come to a consensus on global warming -- their nearly-unanimous agreement is based on a long process of systematic hypothesis, critique, and counter-hypothesis.

I think the point that would have to be made here is that the scientific community hasn't really come to a consensus about global warming. A political power group decided that global warming was important and then their pet scientists signed on and declared it to be a consensus when it was not, in fact the truth. They then proceeded to ostracize and persecute anyone who disagreed with them.

If this was Galileo's age (an analogy all you anti-intellectuals seem intent on making), all scientists would be saying that Global Warming is a myth, because they would have to agree with the primary authority or be threatened with execution.

You're making the mistake of assuming that the primary authority is the Bush administration, when in fact the primary authority on this issue is the international progressive elite in the form of the UN and associated groups. So in promoting global warming the scientists are, in fact, going along with the policy of the group they hold allegiance to.

Dave

Simulations aren't automatically discredited because they're "computer models."

...

The scientific community didn't just arbitrarily come to a consensus on global warming -- their nearly-unanimous agreement is based on a long process of systematic hypothesis, critique, and counter-hypothesis. [emphasis mine]

Sigh...

Here:

WASHINGTON, 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."

Here:

One of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

...

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gr