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 comments126 - Matthew T. Sussman
"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?
127 - alessandro
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.
128 - handyguy
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.
129 - Jesse
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.
130 - Jesse
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.
131 - Peggy McGilligan
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.
132 - RJ
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... ;-)
133 - Dave Nalle
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
134 - RJ
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."
135 - RJ
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 Gray said.
During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.
He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.
...
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
136 - RJ
Here:
On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.
The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.
Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."
Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.
So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?
"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.
Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.
This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times' John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory "court jesters." We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?
137 - RJ
Here:
A NASA research department has admitted that the calculations it used to show an increase in U.S. temperatures were flawed, after a campaign by an amateur meteorologist using his blog.
Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York have been forced to revise estimates after research by Stephen MacIntyre, who published his findings on his Climate Audit blog.
As a result of his calculations, which he e-mailed to NASA, scientists at the agency now say that 1934, not 1998, was the warmest year in the United States since records began to be kept in 1880.
They also accept that five of the 11 warmest U.S. years on record occurred before 1940, and that only one was in the 21st century.
138 - RJ
Oh yeah, and even if you believe that Al Gore has the final say in all things related to climatology (lol), well...it turns out that cow farts are a bigger contributor to the problem than ALL HUMAN TRANSPORTATION. COMBINED.
It's a silent but deadly source of greenhouse gases that contributes more to global warming than the entire world transportation sector, yet politicians almost never discuss it, and environmental lobbyists and other green activist groups seem unaware of its existence.
That may be because it's tough to take cow flatulence seriously. But livestock emissions are no joke.
Most of the national debate about global warming centers on carbon dioxide, the world's most abundant greenhouse gas, and its major sources -- fossil fuels. Seldom mentioned is that cows and other ruminants, such as sheep and goats, are walking gas factories that take in fodder and put out methane and nitrous oxide, two greenhouse gases that are far more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Methane, with 21 times the warming potential of CO2, comes from both ends of a cow, but mostly the front. Frat boys have nothing on bovines, as it's estimated that a single cow can belch out anywhere from 25 to 130 gallons of methane a day.
It isn't just the gas they pass that makes livestock troublesome. A report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization identified livestock as one of the two or three top contributors to the world's most serious environmental problems, including water pollution and species loss. In terms of climate change, livestock are a threat not only because of the gases coming from their stomachs and manure but because of deforestation, as land is cleared to make way for pastures, and the amount of energy needed to produce the crops that feed the animals.
All told, livestock are responsible for 18% of greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide, according to the U.N. -- more than all the planes, trains and automobiles on the planet. And it's going to get a lot worse. As living standards rise in the developing world, so does its fondness for meat and dairy. Annual per-capita meat consumption in developing countries doubled from 31 pounds in 1980 to 62 pounds in 2002, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, which expects global meat production to more than double by 2050. That means the environmental damage of ranching would have to be cut in half just to keep emissions at their current, dangerous level.
139 - Clavos
Damn, RJ, now the vegans are going to join forces with the alarmists and get legislation passed to make us all stop eating meat!
Great set of links, BTW.
Read 'em all; bookmarked 'em too.
140 - Yovana
After last year winner I was so touched and I thought nothing can destroy the reputation of this prize. I guess I was wrong... I believe you do know that Al Gore was one of the biggest proponents of bombing countries while vice presidenting USA. Mine was one of them. I just can`t ignore the fact that this man won Nobel peace prize. Needlessly to emphasise, I don`t believe he can actually influence chranges in Global warming
There are so many people working hard on environment issues for decades, but they`re just "little" people... It looks like Gore decided to get so to say: involved just a few months ago in order to get this prize?!
This is a big shame for The Foundation, I believe that the presure was just so hard on it.
141 - Maurice
Clavos #139
They already have...
142 - Deano
"the primary authority on this issue is the international progressive elite" ??
Sounds an awful lot like The Pentavirate from So I Married an Axe Murderer...
Seriously Dave, you need to either cut back on the medications or radically increase your dosage, one of the two....
Global warming is not a new theory and it didn't just spontaneously arise out of nowhere. It built the scientific consensus over years and years of studies, research, modelling etc., across a wide range of disciplines - oceanography, plantary climatology, biology, etc.
Is there some contraversy? Are there errors? Are the facts unclear and the theories sometimes shaky? Hell yes, this is science - the process is about trial and error and discovery and retrial..you take three steps forward and two back and you learn something new in the process.
You and RJ and Clavos can keep on cherry-picking specific articles and studies to support your views and spinning madly, claiming international conspiracies...it doesn't change a thing.
143 - alessandro
#129- I'm no scientist - in fact I'm too dumb for it - but I'm pretty sure if Galileo or Kepler or Copernicus or Brahe or Bacon or Newton (or whomever you choose to place here) would hang their heads in shame if they witnessed what is happening today.
What is odd is that the minute people justifiably question this award they are dismissed as "right-wingers." So intellectual debates has a beginning and end point?
#130 - So true and I think this is the point of the whole matter and ties into #140 - true environmentalists have been ignored for too long and he comes this guy to hog all the credit. Makes no sense. Though I am sure they appreciate the attention. Something tells me that the general public, sadly, are more attracted to the messenger than the message.
When Lenny Dee Capreeo goes around talking about the environment how many people are actually listening? I'm not from an intellectual perspective but most are just saying "My God. A great actor and an activist! Let's rent one of his movies."
Let Oprah fawn over the cult of the celebrity activist/intellectual.
144 - handyguy
What [specifically] will the "international progressive elite" gain from prevailing in the debate on warming? And who [specifically] will lose?
[Excuse me, I had to stop and finish giggling as I typed Dave's conspiracy theory term "IPE". Do they drive black helicopters too?]
145 - Deano
Yes - the Dreaded IPE! It just reminds me so strongly of the crotchety Scottish grandfather from So I Married an Axe Murderer - here's the dialogue:
Stuart Mackenzie: Well, it's a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.
Tony Giardino: So who's in this Pentavirate?
Stuart Mackenzie: The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, *and* Colonel Sanders before he went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee *beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face. "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!"
Charlie Mackenzie: Dad, how can you hate "The Colonel"?
Stuart Mackenzie: Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, smartass!
146 - Clavos
"You and RJ and Clavos can keep on cherry-picking specific articles and studies to support your views and spinning madly, claiming international conspiracies...it doesn't change a thing."
Perhaps not, but the scientists who wrote them or are quoted in them can, which is why I keep citing them.
Meanwhile, the lemmings keep pouring over the cliff.
147 - handyguy
From Reuters, today:
...the director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute defended the 2007 award from critics who say that climate change has too little to do with peacemaking as envisaged by Alfred Nobel, who founded the awards in his 1895 will.
"The Nobel Committee has always had a broad definition of peace," Geir Lundestad wrote in the daily Aftenposten.
"When seas rise, the number of climate refugees could quickly rise," Lundestad said. "When glaciers melt, rivers will be reduced or even dry out. The lack of resources will increase in parts of the world."
"All this will put weak states under great pressure," he said. "Drought and desertification have already led to the first 'climate wars' in Darfur and in the whole of the Sahel belt across Africa."
He also noted that the first prize, in 1901, was shared by Henry Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross. Some people at the time argued that alleviating suffering had nothing to do with peace.
148 - handyguy
The problem I have with the vehemence of people like RJ and Clavos on this issue is the all-or-nothing approach. They treat proponents of the human-caused warming scenario as enemies to be vanquished. And some environmentalists take a similar warlike stance.
Al Gore certainly hasn't provided the last word on global warming; he has served to make it a more visible issue for the public. On the scientific side, certainly there is room for skepticism or for correction of individual assertions. But if you take that too far, you run the risk of throwing out valid work along with the unsound stuff.
We have done a lot of damage to our planet; if you can't at least agree to that, you're willfully blind. We need to keep finding out more about that damage and about ways to reverse it - whether carbon-emission warming is the central issue or just one of many.
Caricaturing people on both sides of the debate as moron extremists is not going to help this process.
And the ad hominem attacks on Gore himself are just juvenile and pointless.
149 - Clavos
"The problem I have with the vehemence of people like RJ and Clavos on this issue is the all-or-nothing approach. They treat proponents of the human-caused warming scenario as enemies to be vanquished. And some environmentalists take a similar warlike stance."
By attempting to squelch (and discredit) the dissenters at every turn, the alarmists have framed the debate in those terms, leaving us no option but to fight fire with fire.
"And the ad hominem attacks on Gore himself are just juvenile and pointless."
Not guilty.
150 - Deano
Honestly I thought it was a bit of a reach and some typical fashionable political grandstanding for the Nobel Committee to award the prize to Gore however, in light of the spittle-flecked paroxysms of rage and invective it seems to have inspired in certain individuals and political figures, I am now all for it.
151 - handyguy
Well, at first no one believed them [the 'alarmists'], which is probably the origin of the strong rhetoric. Now that they are more or less in the majority of public opinion, maybe some of the rhetoric will cool.
Gore himself is highly visible, but not generally a fire-breather in his characterization of other people. And the UN committee is pretty mild-mannered from what I can see.
But you do have to grant that if someone genuinely believes this to be a crisis, with a time limit attached on being able to do something about it, their rhetoric is going to take on some urgency.
Unless you really claim that none of these folks are sincere, just all opportunists and [sorry, I'm rolling my eyes here] 'power grabbing elites.'
152 - Clavos
'power grabbing elites.'
Again, not guilty; though I DO think that an underlying motive (one of several) on the part of at least some of the members of the UN's IPCC is to bring the US down a peg or two.
Even here in the US, the have nots want to bring down the have mores, so why wouldn't they on a global level?
153 - Deano
By attempting to squelch (and discredit) the dissenters at every turn, the alarmists have framed the debate in those terms, leaving us no option but to fight fire with fire.
Chicken? or Egg?
Clavos, to frame the very argument the way you do above is disingeneous. First the terminology you use betrays your own particular agenda - framing the skeptics on global warming as "the dissenters" ("Gosh, they must be brave..." says little Timmy wistfully, "just like Galileo!") and the global warming theory supporters as "Alarmists" ("Those evil bastards are obviously in the pocket of the IPE...They want to Destroy Our Way of Life").
For decades the theory of global warming was NOT the accepted consensus - it was "sent back" bcause the empirical evidence to support the theory was not sufficient to warrent general acceptance. The theories evolved and percolated, were discussed, studied, and analyzed ad nauseum until, eventually, a consensus emerged that the theoretical basis was sound and supported by a preponderence of evidence. It's a bell curve over time- that's how consensus emerges.
Is everyone going to agree - No. I would expect divergence in the views, Hell, I would encourage divergence in the scientific views however the vast majority of divergence that I have seen has not been scientific in nature but politically and ideologically motivated.
If global warming is full of shit, then I expect there will be no end of scientists anxious to gain their laurels by disproving the theory through science, much as cold fusion was mostly smacked down a few years ago.
154 - Clavos
"Clavos, to frame the very argument the way you do above is disingeneous. First the terminology you use betrays your own particular agenda - framing the skeptics on global warming as "the dissenters" ("Gosh, they must be brave..." says little Timmy wistfully, "just like Galileo!") and the global warming theory supporters as "Alarmists" ("Those evil bastards are obviously in the pocket of the IPE...They want to Destroy Our Way of Life")."
First, my response that you quoted was in direct response to this assertion by Handyguy:
""The problem I have with the vehemence of people like RJ and Clavos on this issue is the all-or-nothing approach. They treat proponents of the human-caused warming scenario as enemies to be vanquished."
Secondly, I never claimed to be non-partisan on the issue; I would think that would be obvious from my positions.
"If global warming is full of shit, then I expect there will be no end of scientists anxious to gain their laurels by disproving the theory through science,"
I never said that. My contention with the "people on the other side" questions the extent of GW's anthropogenic causes, which I (and a number of respected scientists) think is much overstated by the "consensus."
Just the fact that "consensus" has become a pivotal term in the debate is weird to me. Historically, scientists have relied on their own research and experimentation, followed by peer review, to promote their theories, not "consensus."
Had Copernicus relied on "consensus," the sun would still be revolving around the earth. :>)
155 - Baronius
Handy, you've been very delicate lately. Every criticism of your side seems to shake you to your core. I'm sorry for wounding your spirit, and I promise to be as discreet in my comments about the Left as you are about Bush and Cheney.
156 - Dave Nalle
What [specifically] will the "international progressive elite" gain from prevailing in the debate on warming? And who [specifically] will lose?
They gain power. In this case specifically regulatory power in the form of something like the Kyoto treaty. They also gain it in the form of money they can manage in the form of things like carbon offsets and transfer payments and penalties for polluting nations. But most importantly they gain power because they erode the sovereignty of countries like the US, and the less sovereignty we have the more influence and opportunities to weild power they will have.
As for who loses, it will be the people of countries like the US who will increasingly find the policies of the government they voted for and which represents their interests, replaced with those of an international oligarchy which is in no way answerable to them.
[Excuse me, I had to stop and finish giggling as I typed Dave's conspiracy theory term "IPE". Do they drive black helicopters too?]
It's only a conspiracy if it is secret, and what I'm talking about its entirely above board and viewed by many in the world as a good thing.
There ARE conspiracy theories about global shadowy organizations which secretly run the world. That's not what I'm talking about here. The goals and the people supposedly involved in those groups are entirely different.
The transnational culture of international quasi-governmental organizations and NGOs is very real and poses a threat which many don't even perceive specifically because it's not a conspiracy, but more of a worldview. To get an idea of that worldview read this article by Martha Nussbaum.
I realize that what Nussbaum says may seem appealing to some of you, but try to think about the greater implications in practical terms of day to day government and individual rights as we know them here in the US.
Dave
157 - handyguy
No need to do me any favors, thank you, sir. And my most recent posts on this [very dumb but very popular] article were intended to be conciliatory between the two warring sides. Sorry if that sailed over your head.
158 - Deano
Dave,
Your link is non-functional. Please update it, I'd be interested in reading the article.
One question, in your term "The transnational culture of international quasi-governmental organizations and NGOs", are you including the much more powerful transnational corporations and other transnational economic entities? Or just talking about NGO's and international organizations such as the UN?
In terms of resources, influence and capabilities, the transnational corporations leave any culture of international quasi-governmental agencies in the dust...
159 - handyguy
Previous comment was aimed at Baronius.
This for Dave:
"a threat which many don't perceive" ... but you do. This is as good a definition of a conspiracy theory as I know. You're claiming to have special perception and knowledge which the rest of us poor mortals lack.
Your silly thesis also ignores the real possibility that NGOs not only genuinely intend to accomplish good, but actually do accomplish good in the world. Considerably more good than nativist survivalist fear-mongering.
It's the sweeping nature of your assertion that gives the lie to it. There really has been damage to the environment; there can be honest disagreement as to the nature of this damage and the remedy for it; but regulation of businesses might actually be necessary to reverse some of these trends; many businesses are already doing this on their own. Ascribing the whole thing to a faceless 'elite' is stinkin' thinkin' of a fairly low order.
160 - handyguy
No doubt emission controls for cars were denounced as do-gooders interfering with free enterprise when they were first proposed, too. They certainly wouldn't have been implemented without government mandate.
161 - Dave Nalle
Your link is non-functional. Please update it, I'd be interested in reading the article.
It's fixed.
One question, in your term "The transnational culture of international quasi-governmental organizations and NGOs", are you including the much more powerful transnational corporations and other transnational economic entities? Or just talking about NGO's and international organizations such as the UN?
I'm not as concerned about international corporatism, but it's certainly something to keep an eye on. Its objectives are different and it doesn't seem to do harm at the same level.
In terms of resources, influence and capabilities, the transnational corporations leave any culture of international quasi-governmental agencies in the dust...
Not in terms of harm done to actual people.
This for Dave:
"a threat which many don't perceive" ... but you do. This is as good a definition of a conspiracy theory as I know. You're claiming to have special perception and knowledge which the rest of us poor mortals lack.
Not exactly. It's not that some don't see it, it's that they see it as a good thing, not a threat. The realization that it's a threat makes it no more or less real. Those who don't think it's a threat will still admit that the international progressive culture does exist.
Your silly thesis also ignores the real possibility that NGOs not only genuinely intend to accomplish good, but actually do accomplish good in the world.
Except that the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. They spread corruption and destruction wherever they go, because their first interest is in advancing their power and increasing the wealth of those who are part of their in-group, and they care only about the appearance of doing good and not at all about the real consequences of their ill conceived and poorly executed programs.
Considerably more good than nativist survivalist fear-mongering.
Your nativist, survivalist type does no harm to anyone outside of himself. He's not trying to change the world or control how others live.
It's the sweeping nature of your assertion that gives the lie to it. There really has been damage to the environment; there can be honest disagreement as to the nature of this damage and the remedy for it; but regulation of businesses might actually be necessary to reverse some of these trends; many businesses are already doing this on their own. Ascribing the whole thing to a faceless 'elite' is stinkin' thinkin' of a fairly low order.
I've got nothing against the regulation of businesses. That's what government is for. What you seem to miss is that there is a dividing line between regulating business and the institutionalization of that regulation in the form of permanent extra-governmental entities which have authority which transcends borders and overrides the policies of national governments and are answerable to no one. It is the creation of these entities which defines the threat posed by international progressivism.
Dave
162 - Deano
Dave,
You are painting again with a damned broad brush and making some pretty sweeping and absolutist assertations, as usual.
the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary
No it isn't. There are some extremely good NGO's and quasi-governmental international organizations and structures active in the world just as there are some extremely corrupt and useless ones. The impact, influence and power the vast majority of them have is dwarfed by the economic realities of how the world is structured.
Your fatuous claim that transnational corporations by contrast are benign and harmless is asinine - "not in terms of harm to actual people".
Give me a break. I'm starting to think your paranoia is like a little white dog you need to walk on your lawn every few hours - you just keep trotting it out in comment after comment, again and again....
163 - moonraven
Folks: Stop jerking each other off.
This is just silly. there is no reason for you to complain about Gore except that you are envious uneducated [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor].
Although Aristotle wrote that the world was round--and even hazarded a guess at its circumference--how many centuries later were boneheads insisting that the world was flat?
If Nalle drives his rusted out Rambler to the edge of the planet he will fall off into outer space.
Much as I would like to see it happen--it won't.
164 - Baronius
I agree with much of what Dave said, but he's making it a little too simple.
There are no NGO's that exist to breed corruption and support the powerful. NGO staff genuinely want to make the world better, and by and large get small paychecks. But their job is to come into a country and tell the locals what to do. They're supposed to override the old way of doing things and implement an academically-developed model. There's no motivation to consider the local system. NGO's tend toward cookie-cutter projects.
Likewise, they don't set out to increase corruption. They have to work in the situations they find. That's the other side of the coin: they have very little scope. So if an NGO helps a corrupt country bring in medicine, most of the medicine is going to the ruling tribe. Somalia is a perfect example of the unintended consequences crowding out the intended.
There's nothing about NGO's that's suited to implementing an international environmental policy. Nations will comply if they feel like it. There's no inherently neutral enforcement system. Look at history. Countries comply with trade deals and alliances when it helps them. As long as they have sovereignty, they'll break out of deals when they want to. (That's pretty close to the definition of sovereignty.) Kyoto is politicized. Some countries have permission to pollute more than others. That may have been the best possible deal, but it is corrupt.
And look at nuclear non-proliferation. That's sort of in everyone's interest, but it's kind of profitable to break it. How do we keep nuclear weapons from being spread? Through pressure, negotiation, and probably bombing Iran. You need to be able to play that last card for the first two to maybe work. I don't want to give a "Kyoto Enforcement Brigade" permission to bomb our coal mines.
165 - moonraven
Moronic idea, bombing Iran.
Wanna bomb Russia and China, too while you are at it?
The rube mcboobs on this site don't seem to know the difference between murder and...suicide.
166 - Baronius
That's the point I was trying to make, Moon: that enforcing compliance with an international treaty is next to impossible. NGO's aren't suited to the job.
167 - REMF
"How do we keep nuclear weapons from being spread? Through pressure, negotiation, and probably bombing Iran. You need to be able to play that last card for the first two to maybe work."
And "playing that last card" is a very appropriate metaphor, for the war-wimp, X-box mentality. Why not have some grapes about it? Enlist, volunteer for combat and go in on the ground to the front lines.
168 - John Bambenek
You're all still here?
And nothing like trying to shut down debate by insisting no one can support a war without first dying in one. Way to be, team player.
169 - REMF
^ And you'll never have to worry about that, Bambenek...
170 - Dave Nalle
No it isn't. There are some extremely good NGO's and quasi-governmental international organizations and structures active in the world just as there are some extremely corrupt and useless ones.
I agree that some of the purely informational and advocacy NGOs do little harm. Harm seems to be proportional to how much money they have to spend. The more they can actually do, the more harm they produce.
The impact, influence and power the vast majority of them have is dwarfed by the economic realities of how the world is structured.
The economic structure of the world is largely neutral towards individuals and their welfare. Large economic forces lack the intent to do good or ill to people, or the ability to engage in the kind of ill conceived do gooderism which results in the kinds of horrible blunders we've seen in Africa, for example.
Dave
171 - DrPat
Just a couple of comments:
Being liked/winning awards does not equal being right.
Being disliked/losing elections does not equal being wrong.
We ought to be looking at and debating the evidence instead of worrying about whose side has more players (which is what the argument about "consensus" boils down to.)
I do wonder, though, if Gore is truly convinced that global warming will produce the radical ocean rise he predicts, since he bought a million-dollar house "right on the shore" in Northern California...
172 - REMF
"I do wonder, though, if Gore is truly convinced that global warming will produce the radical ocean rise he predicts, since he bought a million-dollar house "right on the shore" in Northern California..."
Maybe he's banking on the possibility of Rush Limbaugh retiring or being fired, which - with the absense of Lardbaugh's daily expelling of hot gas - will drop the world's average temperature 15 degrees...
173 - DrPat
REMF, we're going into a Presidential campaign season. Whether or not Rush is on the air (and I doubt if he will be fired, by the way), we're still guaranteed an ample dose of hot air until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 2008.
174 - RJ
"For decades the theory of global warming was NOT the accepted consensus"
Well, yes that's true. Back in the 1970s, the same people referred to the "crisis" as "global cooling" ... :-/
175 - RJ
"Had Copernicus relied on "consensus," the sun would still be revolving around the earth."
Heh. It's almost funny, actually. The scientist Copernicus went against the "consensus" of the elites, and so his works were edited, he was widely denounced, and he was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life [cite]. All for the "crime" of writing down his findings, which just so happened to be true.
Compare that to today, where the elites denounce those scientists who dare to offer evidence that goes against the "consensus" as "global warming deniers" and are threatened with the loss of their jobs.
The more things change... :-/