Predictably, conservatives and others who challenge the doctrines of man-made climate change are apoplectic at the award...
Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been awarded the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize for 2007. According to the Nobel Foundation, the award was given “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”. Predictably, conservatives and others who challenge the doctrines of man-made climate change are apoplectic at the award and claim it shows bias in the committee that makes such awards. They, however, miss the larger point.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - DrPat
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."
27 - Dave Nalle
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
28 - Matthew T. Sussman
"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?
29 - justoneman
Gonzo as ususal you fall in line with the rest of the Al G(wh)ore lunatics...
"I fart in your general direction!"
JOM
30 - bliffle
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.
31 - bliffle
Oh, I forgot to include a citation:
Science press vs. popular
32 - daryl d
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.
33 - Clavos
"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.
34 - Clavos
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.
35 - alessandro
For the love of God anyone who says they have candy or lost a puppy or says they know the "truth" just say "No!"
36 - Baritone
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
37 - Baritone
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
38 - Dave Nalle
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
39 - bliffle
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.
40 - bliffle
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?
41 - John Bambenek
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.
42 - Doug Hunter
"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.
43 - Baritone
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
44 - John Bambenek
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.
45 - alessandro
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.
46 - moonraven
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.
47 - Dave Nalle
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
48 - moonraven
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.
49 - John Bambenek
Moonraven-
While you were busy checking my facts you missed facts I presented in comment #11 specifically regarding the 2004 award.
50 - Baritone
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
51 - Dave Nalle
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
52 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
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....
53 - Mark Saleski
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.
54 - gonzo marx
"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?
55 - Dr Dreadful
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.
56 - moonraven
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]
57 - Dave Nalle
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
58 - Baronius
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.
59 - RJ
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.
60 - Baronius
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.
61 - handyguy
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.
62 - handyguy
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.
63 - Dave Nalle
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
64 - handyguy
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.
65 - RJ
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.)
66 - RJ
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.
67 - gonzo marx
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?
68 - RJ
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?
69 - RJ
And another...
70 - gonzo marx
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?
71 - Clavos
Or is every damn one of 'em (Dem, Rep, or Ind/other) an incipient, if not actual, criminal?
72 - gonzo marx
@ #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
73 - Dave Nalle
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
74 - gonzo marx
stay away from mirrors then, Vox...
Excelsior?
75 - Dave Nalle
So you think individual liberty and minimal government are bad, Gonzo. Well, that explains a hell of a lot.
Dave