# Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize



## noodles (Oct 12, 2007)

Gore shares Nobel Peace Prize with U.N. panel - CNN.com

Cool, now that that is out of the way, could you PLEASE run for president?


----------



## Desecrated (Oct 12, 2007)

What a fucking joke, neither UN or gore has done anything to deserve that price. 

Since when does thsi ahve anything to do with world peace:
_"Former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their work *to raise awareness about global warming.*"_


----------



## TheReal7 (Oct 12, 2007)

Where the FUCK is my NPP for raising awareness on myspace about hackers and phishing scammers? I guarantee you I put more time and effort into it then these fuckers did about global warming.


----------



## ohio_eric (Oct 12, 2007)

I share the confusion about what manner of world peace Gore has helped along. 

Also I seriously don't want Gore in the White House like Jimmy Carter he has done far better outside of DC than he did inside it.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 12, 2007)

noodles said:


> Gore shares Nobel Peace Prize with U.N. panel - CNN.com
> 
> Cool, now that that is out of the way, could you PLEASE run for president?



I'd want Gore in the President's office only slightly more than I want Hillary there. Which is to say.....not a lot.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Oct 12, 2007)

Holy shit...way to get one for doing barely anything...I guess


----------



## Cancer (Oct 12, 2007)

Maybe I'm missing something, but since Global Warming is a GLOBAL problem, and requires GLOBAL co-operation to solve it, seems to me that this is grounds for a PEACE prize.


----------



## noodles (Oct 12, 2007)

This one man has done more to bring awareness to the problem than anyone else on the planet. Sure, scientists are great, but most people don't listen to them. However, a former vice president with a convincing, easily understandable presentation made the environment an election year issue in this country.



> According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".



I'd say raising awareness for a global problem, and working towards getting nations to band together to tackle the problem together, fits the "fraternity between nations" part of that description.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 12, 2007)

Yeah, my graduate advisor knew the two guys who won for physics. The papers I wrote cited the papers that those guys wrote. 

Gore winning the prize is a bit of a surprise. I guess he needed something to make up for having the election taken away from him.

People who win Nobel Peace prizes never get votes.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 12, 2007)

noodles said:


> This one man has done more to bring awareness to the problem than anyone else on the planet. Sure, scientists are great, but most people don't listen to them. However, a former vice president with a convincing, easily understandable presentation made the environment an election year issue in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say raising awareness for a global problem, and working towards getting nations to band together to tackle the problem together, fits the "fraternity between nations" part of that description.


Well said, Dave. I couldn't agree more.

As an unapologetic tree-hugger, I couldn't be happier for Gore, or for the environmental movement.


As an aside, I read many comments from readers on cnn.com. many of who question the validity of global warming, the role of humanity in the problem, and any sort of scientific consensus on the issue. May I draw everyone's attention to this relevant bit of info -

*Concurring Bodies*

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Joint science academies statement 2007
U.S. National Research Council, 2001
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

*Noncommittal Bodies*

American Association of State Climatologists
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) (Surprise surprise)

*Dissenting Organizations*

No scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.


Also, from Wiki -
_A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[29] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable"._


----------



## Metal Ken (Oct 12, 2007)

Its a shame i cant listen to rush now, since i have classes at those times. I wanted to hear the fat bastard no doubt talk about how Gore will have cheapened the prize


----------



## Drew (Oct 12, 2007)

I'll admit you guys arguing global warming and peace have nothing to do with each other have a point. 

But look at it this way - peace sort of equals not killing everyone, and taking steps (seen proactively) for making sure the greatest number of people live in happiness. Gore has been fighting against a problem facing the world that would, if left unchecked, undoubtably lead to global starvation as well as military campaigns to fight for dwindling global resources. 

So, is it really a stretch? I'm raising a glass to him tonight.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 12, 2007)

Drew said:


> I'll admit you guys arguing global warming and peace have nothing to do with each other have a point.


I think they have zero point.

Peace? War? War doesn't happen in a vacuum. It happens over political reasons, generally instigated over scarce resources. Global Warming ups the ante in the resources game, as it throws long-established climate patterns out of whack - which can (and does) lead to things like increased storm activity, drought, desertification, floods... you name it. All of these things can lead directly to increasing tension and hostility between peoples.

Very fitting.


----------



## playstopause (Oct 12, 2007)

noodles said:


> I'd say raising awareness for a global problem, and working towards getting nations to band together to tackle the problem together, fits the "fraternity between nations" part of that description.



 

I'm happy for Gore and i think he deserves it.


----------



## Mr. S (Oct 12, 2007)

it's good to hear he's got this as recognition for his campaign to raise awareness of man made climate change, i cant believe that faced with all the evidence we have pointing towards it that some people will still dismiss it as a theory.

i do hope this prompts him to run for the whitehouse, i feel he was hard done by when he ran against bush (as the rest of the US has been apparently )


----------



## oompa (Oct 12, 2007)

Drew said:


> I'll admit you guys arguing global warming and peace have nothing to do with each other have a point.
> 
> But look at it this way - peace sort of equals not killing everyone, and taking steps (seen proactively) for making sure the greatest number of people live in happiness. Gore has been fighting against a problem facing the world that would, if left unchecked, undoubtably lead to global starvation as well as military campaigns to fight for dwindling global resources.
> 
> So, is it really a stretch? I'm raising a glass to him tonight.



dude thats a stretch deluxe.

if global warming can lead to peace prize, then pretty much everything can, cus i swear i can stretch "sweden buying salmon from norway" to an act of peace.

-im not trying to diminish the worth of their work or anything- but man.. here's the motivation:

"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"

no, not anywhere does it say that it brings people together in any work against a common goal.

next i think FIFA should win this award. every fourth year they bring the world together for a WC in football, got about 3 billion tv viewers, surely that brings the world together in a common friendly game of football.

wrong field, give him the goldman award, stupid norwegian comittee - period.

and dont make this into a discussion about how important his work is, thats not relevant at all since it is not in the field of peace (any more than the WC of fussball).


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Oct 12, 2007)

We've all known the Nobel Peace Prize was a load of bullshit since Kissinger and Mother Teresa won it.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 12, 2007)

oompa said:


> dude thats a stretch deluxe.
> 
> if global warming can lead to peace prize, then pretty much everything can, cus i swear i can stretch "sweden buying salmon from norway" to an act of peace.



Gonna call bullshit. Again.

Read up on your history. Wars have been routinely fought over resources. Global warming DIRECTLY affects the material outcome of resources and production, especially food and land.

The "Peace" prize is a no-brainer, and in no fucking way a stretch.


The Dark Wolf said:


> I think they have zero point.
> 
> Peace? War? War doesn't happen in a vacuum. It happens over political reasons, generally instigated over scarce resources. Global Warming ups the ante in the resources game, as it throws long-established climate patterns out of whack - which can (and does) lead to things like increased storm activity, drought, desertification, floods... you name it. All of these things can lead directly to increasing tension and hostility between peoples.
> 
> Very fitting.


----------



## ohio_eric (Oct 12, 2007)

Jongpil Yun said:


> We've all known the Nobel Peace Prize was a load of bullshit since Kissinger and Mother Teresa won it.



Kissinger I'll buy into but Mother Teresa?? Wow! I want to hear the explanation on this one.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 12, 2007)

^ Completely agreed.


----------



## evilscribbler (Oct 12, 2007)

I can understand Gore way more than I can understand some of the previous winners. Lets not forget 1994's grand winners - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, whose monumental acts of 'peace' have resulted in the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 12, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> Kissinger I'll buy into but Mother Teresa?? Wow! I want to hear the explanation on this one.



Taking money from the poor to build temples of suffering so that she could become closer to Christ with the deaths of people who easily could have been saved with simple medical attention, to sum it up briefly. She's made out to be a saint but it takes a huge stretch to get her there - Christopher Hitchens was called on by the Vatican to play devil's advocate against her sainthood, and long story short he ripped her so many new ones that they had to sew her back up twice before he could keep going.

Jeff


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Oct 12, 2007)

The fanatic, fraudulent Mother Teresa. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

JBroll is mostly right except for the fact that the position of Devil's Advocate was abolished. My biggest real beef with Mother Teresa is that she took the millions that were donated to her, and instead of building teaching hospitals and the like which she promised to do, she built hundreds of convents, _in her name_.


----------



## evilscribbler (Oct 12, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Taking money from the poor to build temples of suffering so that she could become closer to Christ with the deaths of people who easily could have been saved with simple medical attention, to sum it up briefly. She's made out to be a saint but it takes a huge stretch to get her there - Christopher Hitchens was called on by the Vatican to play devil's advocate against her sainthood, and long story short he ripped her so many new ones that they had to sew her back up twice before he could keep going.
> 
> Jeff



so, you think she shouldn't have got the prize then


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Oct 12, 2007)

evilscribbler said:


> so, you think she shouldn't have got the prize then



She shouldn't have gotten _any_ prize.


----------



## evilscribbler (Oct 12, 2007)

just goes to prove that perspective IS everything: saint or sinner, blowhard or teller of truths, noble eco-warrior or self aggrandizing President wanna-be-never-was .........


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 12, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Taking money from the poor to build temples of suffering so that she could become closer to Christ with the deaths of people who easily could have been saved with simple medical attention, to sum it up briefly. She's made out to be a saint but it takes a huge stretch to get her there - Christopher Hitchens was called on by the Vatican to play devil's advocate against her sainthood, and long story short he ripped her so many new ones that they had to sew her back up twice before he could keep going.



Christopher Hitchens. *Snort* What a blowhard. Don't forget to add that Hitchens is basically a career muckraker who makes his living off of this sort of character assassination and pseudo-intellectualism.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 12, 2007)

Refute the points he makes or your post is going to sound an awful lot like character assassination. Not liking the guy is one thing, but disregarding everything he says because of it is hardly intellectual.

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 12, 2007)

Not much different from him.

I tell you what. You (or Hitchens), even if you disagree with certain philosophical points that Mother Teresa may have advocated, spend your life living in service to others so completely, gain some perspective, _then_ have something to say? Well, look me up.

No one is discounting everything the guy says, but one must always consider the source. 


Any rate, I'd appreciate if you guys stay on topic, and don't go all over the place with this.


----------



## Jongpil Yun (Oct 12, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> career muckraker



I believe we call those people "investigative journalists." That being said, I don't know Christopher Hitchens' work very well (or at all really, seen a few interviews but that's about it) but from what I have seen, your comments seem unwarranted. He's certainly acerbic, but you seem to be using the term pseudo-intellectual differently than I would.


----------



## ohio_eric (Oct 12, 2007)

Wy must everyone bring up Christopher Hitchens? I hate that pompous horse's ass with a passion. 

Anyway in so far as Mother Teresa goes her methodology may have been lacking and she was hardline old school Catholic. Hitchens wants you to believe that her opinions are uncommon. Guess what they're not. Lots of Catholics take that very hardline approach to their faith. I don't agreee with it but it exists. Also remember Mother Teresa came from a pre-Vatican II Catholic Church that was far stricter and more dogmatic than the modern Church. So it does not chock me at all that she was so strict. 

Also Hitchens is woefully ignorant of the thousands of Catholics who reject materialism entirlely and live in very humble circumstances. Maybe Mother Teresa wasn't trying elevate people as much as she was trying to comfort them.

I also got a chuckle out of this nonsense. 



> She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.



Is he serious? It's not oppurtunity or the right to fair wages? What about education? It seems Hitchens in his bloodlust to demonize someone who actually did something meaningful with their lives isn't really too concerned with real logic and reason and facts.

So what have we learned? That Mother Teresa wasn't perfect. Of course none of us are and that's ok. Mother Teresa's gift to the human race was her willingness to suffer and help people and to inspire others to do likewise. No she was not perfect and even suffered from crisises of faith. But her work wasn't the failure Hitchens wants you to believe it is. 

Just a small diversion as I must state this about Hitchens. With all the finger pointing that he does. I must wonder, what is he hiding? As a general I can say with a good deal of certainty that people that point the faults in others the most have the biggest scariest skeletons in their own closets. I really wonder what could it possibly be that drives him to tear people down as he does.


----------



## evilscribbler (Oct 12, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Not much different from him.
> 
> I tell you what. You (or Hitchens), even if you disagree with certain philosophical points that Mother Teresa may have advocated, spend your life living in service to others so completely, gain some perspective, _then_ have something to say? Well, look me up.




couldn't agree more ....


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 12, 2007)

It's not unwarranted to point out that the guy makes a career of this sort of "investigative journalism." You think he's not pushing an angle? Hardly. Cultural shock value. "Your sacred cows aren't sacred!"

Hardly unwarranted. But, enough of that, I made my point. Let's stay on topic. Further digressions will likely be moderated.


----------



## oompa (Oct 13, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Gonna call bullshit. Again.
> 
> Read up on your history. Wars have been routinely fought over resources. Global warming DIRECTLY affects the material outcome of resources and production, especially food and land.
> 
> The "Peace" prize is a no-brainer, and in no fucking way a stretch.



nope, i disagree. i understood the connection drew was making, i didnt need that clarified. i was saying i just still saw it as a stretch. and i do know my general history, dont worry about that. but if you dont draw a line between environmental goals and peace goals in global warming, then i believe that you - together with the award jury, is way to generous in the distinction of what the prize is awarded for.

never ever have i heard the motivation that you should care about global warming in fear of the war that will follow it? sounds like scare propaganda. never ever has it ever occured that the problem isnt about changing the climate, species die out, food resources be laid to waste, land becoming inhabitable, changing the natural balance in marine life etc etc.

a secondary effect of this might be war for resources but that aint the reason i care about it. and i am really interrested in the global warming effect as well as environmental care.

and on the mother teresa thing, what ohio_eric says, the religious situation (the catholic situation) explains to me atleast why she did things the way she did, schooled in behaviour by catholics during the 20's - 30's. things were quite different in religious schools back then. but i understand some people might not buy that as an excuse.


----------



## Jerich (Oct 13, 2007)

gore= good for him


Bono= what the fuck he had been nominated if he gets one i will fucking loose it.....


----------



## Drew (Oct 13, 2007)

I'd like U2 _so_ much more if Bono wasn't so annoying in his public life.


----------



## jim777 (Oct 13, 2007)

There's no direct line between the peace prize and the winner as there is with medicine and physics. The Peace prize goes to whomever, for whatever reason. There's little point indebating whether someone deserves one or not. Who made you feel guilty about being safe and happy and alive last year? That's the person with the best chance of winning when no peace has actually broken out.  This isn't the kind of thing that's given to people you've never heard of. Bono could easily win one, and probably will at some point.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 13, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> *Dissenting Organizations*
> 
> No scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.



Home - Global Warming Petition Project

Just thought I'd throw this out there...

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 13, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Home - Global Warming Petition Project
> 
> Just thought I'd throw this out there...



_In 2005, Scientific American reported:
&#8220; Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition &#8212;- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers &#8211; a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[12] &#8221;

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
&#8220; In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?_

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Just thought I'd throw _that_ out there.

Notice - no international Scientific bodies. Hmm.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 13, 2007)

oompa said:


> never ever have i heard the motivation that you should care about global warming in fear of the war that will follow it? sounds like scare propaganda.
> .



Never ever, huh? Funny. I have, repeatedly. You think I make this stuff up? Read on, dear Forumite.


_A platoon of retired U.S. generals and admirals warned that global warming "presents significant national security challenges to the United States." The United Nations Security Council held its first-ever debate on the impact of climate change on conflicts. And in Congress, a bipartisan bill would require a National Intelligence Estimate by all federal intelligence agencies to assess the security threats posed by global climate change.

Many experts view climate change as a "threat multiplier" that intensifies instability around the world by worsening water shortages, food insecurity, disease, and flooding that lead to forced migration. That's the thrust of a 35-page report by 11 admirals and generals this week issued by the Alexandria, Va.-based national security think tank The CNA Corporation. The study, titled "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change," predicts:

# "Projected climate change will seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states. ... The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide, and the growth of terrorism.

# "The U.S. may be drawn more frequently into these situations, either alone or with allies, to help provide stability before conditions worsen and are exploited by extremists. The U.S. may also be called upon to undertake stability and reconstruction efforts once a conflict has begun, to avert further disaster and reconstitute a stable environment."

"We will pay for this one way or another," retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former commander of American forces in the Middle East and one of the report's authors, told the Los Angeles Times. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today &#8230; or we'll pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives." 
_

Could Global Warming Cause War?, Report Warns That Conflicts Over Water And Food Could Intensify As Climate Changes - CBS News


----------



## JBroll (Oct 13, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> _In 2005, Scientific American reported:
>  Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition - one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers  a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[12] 
> 
> In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
> ...



I know it's a joke, it's like the '100 Scientists who disagree with evolution' thing. The opposition isn't trying very hard...

Jeff


----------



## T_money419 (Oct 13, 2007)

Gore can go suck a chode. Has his own private jet and mansion and is urging people to act now to save the environment.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 13, 2007)

^ That was about a worthless comment.


----------



## jim777 (Oct 13, 2007)

Gore was awesome on South Park, I wonder if he'll reprise that role with his new hardware?


----------



## jim777 (Oct 14, 2007)

Man Bear Pig is totally serial


----------



## Metal Ken (Oct 14, 2007)

T_money419 said:


> Gore can go suck a chode. Has his own private jet and mansion and is urging people to act now to save the environment.



And how much are you doing to help?


----------



## noodles (Oct 15, 2007)

JBroll said:


> Home - Global Warming Petition Project
> 
> Just thought I'd throw this out there...
> 
> Jeff





Wikipedia said:


> Shortly before his retirement from Rockefeller University in 1979, Seitz began working as a paid permanent consultant for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, advising their research program [2].
> 
> By 1989, the CEO of R.J. Reynolds, William Hobbs, concluded that "Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice."



Your argument is one old codger (born in 1911) that most recently worked as a consultant for a tobacco company? You're going to have to do better that that.


----------



## noodles (Oct 15, 2007)

T_money419 said:


> Gore can go suck a chode. Has his own private jet and mansion and is urging people to act now to save the environment.



And you can suck on a 1 day nap if you make another stupid comment that offers nothing to the discussion. Try disagreeing in a rational, intelligent way.


----------



## NDG (Oct 15, 2007)

Well, it kind of offers something.  



wiki said:


> but the Gore family mansion in Nashville consumes 12 to 20 times more energy than the average family home, and its consumption has risen since the film was produced in 2005.



However, the next sentence:



wiki said:


> Gore's supporters, however, counter that the Gore Family has done much to offset their carbon footprint and electrical usage, such as through the installation of solar panels.



(btw I support Gore's global position)


----------



## noodles (Oct 15, 2007)

^That one got soundly debunked a week after it came out. The Gore family does not consume 12 to 20 times more energy than the average family home--they _spend_ 12 to 20 times more on power than the average family home, which is a subtle but extremely important difference. They only purchase green power, which means they're paying many times more for power than the average American. They also spent a substantial sum of money upgrading their older home to be energy efficient, as well as fighting (and winning) the city council to repeal an ordnance disallowing the installation of solar panels.

This was typical of the right wing's approach to politics. If you cannot prove someone wrong, simply distort the facts, or outright lie, to support your position. Most people won't ever bother to learn the truth, and with the conservative media blackout, the retraction will be pages deep or ten seconds near the end of the broadcast, if it even occurs at all.


----------



## NDG (Oct 15, 2007)

Kudos to Gore.







> I have ridden the mighty moon worm!



I love that episode


----------



## T_money419 (Oct 15, 2007)

noodles said:


> ^That one got soundly debunked a week after it came out. The Gore family does not consume 12 to 20 times more energy than the average family home--they _spend_ 12 to 20 times more on power than the average family home, which is a subtle but extremely important difference. They only purchase green power, which means they're paying many times more for power than the average American. They also spent a substantial sum of money upgrading their older home to be energy efficient, as well as fighting (and winning) the city council to repeal an ordnance disallowing the installation of solar panels.
> 
> This was typical of the right wing's approach to politics. If you cannot prove someone wrong, simply distort the facts, or outright lie, to support your position. Most people won't ever bother to learn the truth, and with the conservative media blackout, the retraction will be pages deep or ten seconds near the end of the broadcast, if it even occurs at all.



So why does he fly in his own private jet when airplanes cause the second most air pollution in the world next to cars? Is this a solar powered jet plane or is he just a hipocritical attention whore? Is Gore going to admit the innaccuracies of his movie(ie. why britain has banned an inconvinient truth in schools) before or after he accepts a Nobel Peace Prize?


----------



## noodles (Oct 15, 2007)

T_money419 said:


> So why does he fly in his own private jet when airplanes cause the second most air pollution in the world next to cars? Is this a solar powered jet plane or is he just a hipocritical attention whore? Is Gore going to admit the innaccuracies of his movie(ie. why britain has banned an inconvinient truth in schools) before or after he accepts a Nobel Peace Prize?



First off, how would you propose that he maintain his rigorous schedule without the aide of air travel? I would argue that the amount of good he is doing offsets the bad that is needed to accomplish his goals. If you think of this in terms of a return on investment, it makes a lot of sense. For example, if burning one extra gallon of gasoline a week could result in ten people cutting back on one gallon of gasoline a week, that is a net savings of nine gallons of gasoline. Honestly, what do you expect him to do? Bike from city to city?

Which inaccuracies are you talking about? Can you back your statement up, or are you taking the typical conservative route of pointing and slandering? I don't exactly put much stock in the British government, since Tony Blair was one of only two world leaders who supported George Bush and the Iraq War. It would be quite a different matter if a credible British Scientific Society criticized the movie for inaccuracies, since conservative politicians are typically know for their stunning lack of understanding of scientific advancements and methodology. Most still equate the word "theory" with "guess".


----------



## JBroll (Oct 15, 2007)

noodles said:


> Your argument is one old codger (born in 1911) that most recently worked as a consultant for a tobacco company? You're going to have to do better that that.



No, I was on his side - that's the best they can do, and it's laughable. That's why I elaborated with the '100 scientists against evolution' petition. It's like saying 'Well, I'm about to be charged with fifteen counts of distributing child pornography and they're still gathering evidence for the molestation, but at least I have NAMBLA's support...' as a plea for public sympathy.

Jeff


----------



## NDG (Oct 15, 2007)

I don't think it's banned anymore.

News Story


----------



## noodles (Oct 15, 2007)

JBroll said:


> No, I was on his side - that's the best they can do, and it's laughable. That's why I elaborated with the '100 scientists against evolution' petition. It's like saying 'Well, I'm about to be charged with fifteen counts of distributing child pornography and they're still gathering evidence for the molestation, but at least I have NAMBLA's support...' as a plea for public sympathy.



My fault, I misunderstood. And that NAMBLA crack is funny.


----------



## BigM555 (Oct 15, 2007)

Gore said:


> "I will accept this award on behalf of all of those who have been working so long and so hard to try and get the message out about this planetary emergency,"



Doesn't sound to me like he isn't acknowledging the fact that he wasn't the one to do the research.

Though I have to laugh at this.



web article said:


> Gore, 59, said he will donate his half of the $1.5-million US prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a non-profit organization devoted to conveying the urgency of solving the climate crisis.



Funny how they don't mention Gore is the founder and current chairman of the organization. Nothing like funding your own salary under the guise of giving to charity (I'm assuming he draws one as Chairman).

In any case, I applaud Gore's efforts to bring comprehension to the masses and think he's every bit as deserving of the award as others. Oddly enough, besides Bono  I haven't seen any other candidates suggested.

People too often forget that many of these awards ARE a popularity contest. The simple fact that so many people can passionately debate Al Gore's contributions is proof enough of the impact he's had.


----------



## Samer (Oct 16, 2007)

I am very happy about this! 
And the connection between peace and Gore's efforts to stop global warming are simple, if we neglect the environment we are in for a future of war and chaos. If the ocean levels rise and billions of people are misplaced we can only imagine what will happen.

By brining this information out in the public and focusing our attention on it, he is basically doing the equivalent of finding an meteoroid thats about to hit earth.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 16, 2007)

JBroll said:


> No, I was on his side - that's the best they can do, and it's laughable. That's why I elaborated with the '100 scientists against evolution' petition. It's like saying 'Well, I'm about to be charged with fifteen counts of distributing child pornography and they're still gathering evidence for the molestation, but at least I have NAMBLA's support...' as a plea for public sympathy.



 Agreed. Very funny.


----------



## Samer (Oct 16, 2007)

T_money419 said:


> So why does he fly in his own private jet when airplanes cause the second most air pollution in the world next to cars? Is this a solar powered jet plane or is he just a hipocritical attention whore? Is Gore going to admit the innaccuracies of his movie(ie. why britain has banned an inconvinient truth in schools) before or after he accepts a Nobel Peace Prize?



Under location why does it say "Baghdad Iraq" ? 

And there are no inaccuracies in the movie.


----------



## noodles (Oct 16, 2007)

BigM555 said:


> Funny how they don't mention Gore is the founder and current chairman of the organization. Nothing like funding your own salary under the guise of giving to charity (I'm assuming he draws one as Chairman).



Well, since he has done more to raise awareness to the problem than anyone else, I figure his organization can make better use of the money than any other. As for the money, hey, he has to make a living, right? Honestly, I'm sure any one of us in his shoes would do exactly the same.


----------



## BigM555 (Oct 16, 2007)

I just find it rather cliche of a career politician to "not mention" the fact that the charitable organization he's giving the money to also pays his salary.

It certainly fits the description of "spin", no?

Those of us that are not career politicians would likely have said something like "I will be donating my share of the award to my non-profit charity and we will then decide how to best use it to further our cause". Still seems to be a noble move but much less so eh?

But, no surpises, it is his skill in the political arena that have allowed him to deliver such a valuable message.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 16, 2007)

Samer said:


> And there are no inaccuracies in the movie.



I will say that just about everyone I've talked to - including people who spend all of their time on computer simulations - has bashed the hell out of the climate computer simulation. There's just not the technology for it yet, and my favorite description of it is that applying the conditions 30 years ago and simulating until today, New York would be underwater already.

Jeff


----------



## Samer (Oct 16, 2007)

JBroll said:


> I will say that just about everyone I've talked to - including people who spend all of their time on computer simulations - has bashed the hell out of the climate computer simulation. There's just not the technology for it yet, and my favorite description of it is that applying the conditions 30 years ago and simulating until today, New York would be underwater already.
> 
> Jeff



I watched the movie with a PhD biology student, and a biology professor. Both said the movie was dead on, any way even if there are some inaccuracies they are not made in bad faith.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 16, 2007)

Assuming that a computer can model climate systems for a week is a stretch - that time span is pie-in-the-sky. I doubt he was trying to lie outright with it, but that's insanely far-fetched and the model used has been shown to be inaccurate just by analysis of what it would have said about the last few decades. I haven't heard anyone but physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists talking about the model, though, so if someone seems like a better source than them for that simulation then by all means they could override that.

Jeff


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 16, 2007)

In all fairness, Jeff is right on what he's saying. Climate forecasting requires intensive mathematics and very powerful computers to have any sort of accuracy and/or precision over any sort of extended period.


However, it has to be added that general trends of warming and phenomena associated with weather events precipitated by those trends can be pretty readily extrapolated.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 16, 2007)

You can model weather with a rather small set of equations. These equations are nonlinear in multiple variables, though. Solving them numerically is possible, but takes a long time.

Any computer simulations are not inaccurate, but are not as precise as they may need to be to predict rain on a certain day, etc.

The difference between accuracy and precision is in the scope of what you must model. Precision has to do with detail, accuracy has to do with true or false. I can make a very accurate computer simulation of the weather that will not be precise on a time or space scale, but the events will still hold true.

I hope this helps clarify.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 16, 2007)

I'm aware of the differences in accuracy and precision.










The issue isn't weather modeling, but climate modeling. The geographical scope is much greater, as is the time variable.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 16, 2007)

bostjan said:


> You can model weather with a rather small set of equations. These equations are nonlinear in multiple variables, though. Solving them numerically is possible, but takes a long time.



The error involved is also going to be huge. Any time you start dealing with thermal physics you have to work with generalizations based on statistical mechanics, and any time you actually want to get useful numbers you have to start approximating complex but accurate functions (like factorials, essential to any sort of statistics but a bitch and three-quarters to actually compute for numbers anywhere near the size of the numbers concerned here) with simpler things (like Stirling's approximation of the factorial) just so that the computations take a reasonable amount of time. The error can be minimized with approximately a metric fuckload of computing power, but... compounding over thirty years is just out of the question.

Fuck, I hated thermal physics.

Jeff


----------



## bostjan (Oct 16, 2007)

Naw, if you are using such a microscopic method, you'll never get to modelling global climate. The beauty of modern thermodynamics is that you can use macroscopic variables to describe things.


----------



## JBroll (Oct 16, 2007)

bostjan said:


> Naw, if you are using such a microscopic method, you'll never get to modelling global climate. The beauty of modern thermodynamics is that you can use macroscopic variables to describe things.



Yes, but that comes at a cost. That cost over that time is too much. I'm not talking about just using a microscopic method, I'm talking about macroscopic approximations based on the same statistical mechanics - we're not expecting computers to model every atom, but we are relying on the same foundation and getting error as a result. Over a week it doesn't matter. But over thirty years... hell, five hundred bucks left on a credit card bill turns into a brand new car's worth of debt over thirty years. As beautiful as modern thermal physics can be (which depends primarily on how much you like pain) it's still not where it needs to be for us to be able to model climates.

Why the hell did I minor in physics? Why not... art history? Philosophy? Fuck me, I'm taking history classes next semester.

Jeff


----------



## T_money419 (Oct 26, 2007)

noodles said:


> First off, how would you propose that he maintain his rigorous schedule without the aide of air travel? I would argue that the amount of good he is doing offsets the bad that is needed to accomplish his goals. If you think of this in terms of a return on investment, it makes a lot of sense. For example, if burning one extra gallon of gasoline a week could result in ten people cutting back on one gallon of gasoline a week, that is a net savings of nine gallons of gasoline. Honestly, what do you expect him to do? Bike from city to city?
> 
> Which inaccuracies are you talking about? Can you back your statement up, or are you taking the typical conservative route of pointing and slandering? I don't exactly put much stock in the British government, since Tony Blair was one of only two world leaders who supported George Bush and the Iraq War. It would be quite a different matter if a credible British Scientific Society criticized the movie for inaccuracies, since conservative politicians are typically know for their stunning lack of understanding of scientific advancements and methodology. Most still equate the word "theory" with "guess".


Is He really in so much of a rush that he can't use any one of the pre existing airlines? He's not saving lives here. When he travels, he's giving speechs and presentations. Is his private jet a real neccessity or just a luxury? 

UK judge: 'Alarmism' in Gore film - CNN.com

Basically in the movie Gore exagerates the facts to strengthen his points and persuade people. He also does not represent facts which disprove his theory. This gives the movie a huge political bias, which is why Britain is forcing the teachers to explain to the students nine errors that are found in the film are there in the context of alarmism. I'd probably do exactly the same thing that Gore did, and I don't think I would deserve a nobel fucking peace prize if I did.


Samer said:


> And there are no inaccuracies in the movie.



"And you can suck on a 1 day nap if you make another stupid comment that offers nothing to the discussion. Try disagreeing in a rational, intelligent way."


----------



## Drew (Oct 29, 2007)

T_money419 said:


> This gives the movie a huge political bias, which is why Britain is forcing the teachers to explain to the students nine errors that are found in the film are there in the context of alarmism. I'd probably do exactly the same thing that Gore did, and I don't think I would deserve a nobel fucking peace prize if I did.
> 
> 
> "And you can suck on a 1 day nap if you make another stupid comment that offers nothing to the discussion. Try disagreeing in a rational, intelligent way."



1.) I don't remember the name of the group pressuirng UK schools to explain these "nine errors" in "An Inconvenient Truth," but I remember reading about it in The Economist. Do some research - the group isn't exactly bipartisan. As I recall, it's funded entirely by the oil industry. 

2.) I'm hoping that last bit was a moderator edit, and not your actual comment.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 29, 2007)

Drew said:


> 1.) I don't remember the name of the group pressuirng UK schools to explain these "nine errors" in "An Inconvenient Truth," but I remember reading about it in The Economist. Do some research - the group isn't exactly bipartisan. As I recall, it's funded entirely by the oil industry.


I believe you mean nonpartisan here, D.


----------



## Drew (Oct 29, 2007)

Tomato, tomahto.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 29, 2007)

Actually, they're two completely different terms.


non·par·ti·san (n&#335;n-pär't&#301;-z&#601;n, -s&#601;n) pronunciation
adj.

Based on, influenced by, affiliated with, or supporting the interests or policies of no single political party: a nonpartisan commission; nonpartisan opinions.


bi·par·ti·san (b&#299;-pär't&#301;-z&#601;n, -s&#601;n) pronunciation
adj.

Of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties: a bipartisan resolution.


----------



## Drew (Oct 29, 2007)

I was kidding, dude. I'm perfectly aware they're different terms, and that I used the wrong one. I was jokingly laughing it off, making fun of myself.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 29, 2007)

Gotcha.  Welcome to Drew-world.


----------



## Drew (Oct 29, 2007)

Almost everything I say is half a joke, bro.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 29, 2007)

After how many years of friendship? I know this.


I just like to fuck with you now and then. It's good for the relationship.


----------



## Samer (Oct 29, 2007)

T_money419 said:


> "And you can suck on a 1 day nap if you make another stupid comment that offers nothing to the discussion. Try disagreeing in a rational, intelligent way."



When did you become a mod? and BTW i don't see anything stupid about the comment, even the predictions in the movie are what the vast majority of the scientific community believes. 

You can spin it what ever way you want.


----------



## Drew (Oct 29, 2007)

Samer said:


> When did you become a mod? and BTW i don't see anything stupid about the comment, even the predictions in the movie are what the vast majority of the scientific community believes.
> 
> You can spin it what ever way you want.



Samer, not 100% sure here, but I think another mod deleted his comment (probably something like "suck it") and replaced it with a warning to him. 

Don't worry, we have SOME standards.


----------



## noodles (Oct 29, 2007)

Drew said:


> Samer, not 100% sure here, but I think another mod deleted his comment (probably something like "suck it") and replaced it with a warning to him.



Yep. I was that mod.


----------



## Samer (Oct 30, 2007)

Ahh thanks for clearing that up guys. I still don't under stand why he says he is from Iraq in his profile info?


----------

