Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

[palerider]

Well, while I'm sure Vice President Gore and the hundreds... actually thousands... of respected scientists and geologists from all around the world that agree with the concept that man is helping create a detrimental effect on the environment including climate change is on a par with your opinion in the "school paper"... I think there's a sort of obvious difference.

The committee has spoken. There's nothing to be gained by being a hater. Gore's work was recognized as important and credible. Now that doesn't mean everyone has to agree. But the ones giving out the prize... obviously did.

Do you want to discuss the science that al got so wrong or are you just a parrot repeating what you are told to repeat and believing what you are told to believe?

 

[SW85]

Well, while I'm sure Vice President Gore and the hundreds... actually thousands... of respected scientists and geologists from all around the world that agree with the concept that man is helping create a detrimental effect on the environment including climate change is on a par with your opinion in the "school paper"... I think there's a sort of obvious difference.

In terms of practical effects, no, there wasn't. I made as much of a difference on campus (which is to say none) that those hundreds, no thousands, of scientists and geologists who threw their weight behind a dumpy unhinged washed-out political malcontent who lied his way through some shlocky Hollywood hit piece.

You're basically admitting Gore hasn't done anything and that the Nobel Peace Prize has become some symbol of back-patting lefty "moral authority." Where other people got it for actually doing stuff, Al Gore didn't even get it for convincing people to do stuff. He got it for talking about convincing people to do stuff he, himself, isn't even doing. And again, if his work is, as you suggest, scientifically credible, why was he not given the prize in one of the science categories?

The committee has spoken. There's nothing to be gained by being a hater. Gore's work was recognized as important and credible. Now that doesn't mean everyone has to agree. But the ones giving out the prize... obviously did.

OK, well, first of all, I defy you to point out where anyone here said that Gore didn't get the prize, because if no one said that he didn't, then pointing out that he did get it accomplishes nothing (rather like Gore himself).

And if you acknowledge no one has to agree, then don't bristle at my disagreement and actually try to defend the guy on some grounds better than, "It's in the past." It's not in the past. The man should've been laughed off stage for his dishonesty, and instead he's getting a metal.

 

[Bunz]

I just want to point out it has been raining here in western Alaska. We had a dusting of snow a week ago. Now it has been pouring. Anecdotally on my part, It is only been since 2000 that we would have temps in the 40s after Columbus day. In years past, the several inches of rain we are receiving historically would have been a foot of snow. Snow that would remain in place until March-April breakup.

I was down at the beach watching the waves just hammering the shore line and causing considerable erosion. Historically these powerful early winter storms and potential erosion, has been dampened by sea ice.

Actual scientific evidence? That could be argued. Enough to know something is different and the change isnt a positive one? I am seeing it with my own eyes.

 

[palerider]

I just want to point out it has been raining here in western Alaska. We had a dusting of snow a week ago. Now it has been pouring. Anecdotally on my part, It is only been since 2000 that we would have temps in the 40s after Columbus day. In years past, the several inches of rain we are receiving historically would have been a foot of snow. Snow that would remain in place until March-April breakup.

I was down at the beach watching the waves just hammering the shore line and causing considerable erosion. Historically these powerful early winter storms and potential erosion, has been dampened by sea ice.

Actual scientific evidence? That could be argued. Enough to know something is different and the change isnt a positive one? I am seeing it with my own eyes.

For the bulk of earth's history, it would have been raining with not even a thought of snow falling. On earth, ice is the anomomly, not the norm. I have posted this before, but I am going to post it again because I believe it is important that people realise that the warming trend we are in is perfectly normal. This simple (but accurate) chart shows the general climactic trends of the earth for the past 600 million years or so. You will note that for the bulk of history, the mean temperature has been so warm that you might not even have found ice at the top of Danali or Everest and as you can see, the period of cold that we have lived in has lasted longer than is normal. If you want to make an argument that the facts will support, argue that we are holding up global warming, not that we are causing it.

 

[Bunz]

Yes I have seen that before Pale, and I am aware that historically ice fluctuates, etc.

If one were to discuss this in terms of the movement of geologic features which are known to be quite slow, the shift happening at least in Alaska is very signifigant.

 

[palerider]

Yes I have seen that before Pale, and I am aware that historically ice fluctuates, etc.

If one were to discuss this in terms of the movement of geologic features which are known to be quite slow, the shift happening at least in Alaska is very signifigant.

There is no evidence to suggest that it is signifigant. We know of climate changes in relatively recent history in which temperatures fluctuated much more, and more quickly than we are experiencing now. Reference the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Perhaps signifigant in terms of your life time or even your great grandparent's lifetimes, but in terms of earth history, there isn't a single indication that it is unusual in the least.

 

[Popeye]

There is no evidence to suggest that it is signifigant. We know of climate changes in relatively recent history in which temperatures fluctuated much more, and more quickly than we are experiencing now.

This site disputes that, saying that "the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years". -

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/​

 

[top gun]

This site disputes that, saying that "the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years". -

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/​

Popeye what do you say... I say we all jump on the neo-con pollution is a good thing BANDWAGON!!!

I've been fed up for a long time now with these clean air/clean water freaks. Everyone knows God gave us this planet and there is nothing that we as mere mortals could possibly do that could affect our environment in any way!

Everything is GREAT! Carbon emissions are good. Heck even a nuclear war is nothing the planet can't handle with one hand tied behind it's back. It's all just rosy!!!

not!

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Popeye what do you say... I say we all jump on the neo-con pollution is a good thing BANDWAGON!!!

I've been fed up for a long time now with these clean air/clean water freaks. Everyone knows God gave us this planet and there is nothing that we as mere mortals could possibly do that could affect our environment in any way!

Everything is GREAT! Carbon emissions are good. Heck even a nuclear war is nothing the planet can't handle with one hand tied behind it's back. It's all just rosy!!!

not!

Please provide me with one source that says pollution is a good thing. I'm going to ignore your next post unless it has a link or a quote in it.

 

[Bunz]

There is no evidence to suggest that it is signifigant. We know of climate changes in relatively recent history in which temperatures fluctuated much more, and more quickly than we are experiencing now. Reference the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Perhaps signifigant in terms of your life time or even your great grandparent's lifetimes, but in terms of earth history, there isn't a single indication that it is unusual in the least.

What about the additional monies being involved which are signifigant in a adressing the problem? For instance, my community has $10m set aside for those purposes. In the meantime, erosition control would cost $100m to make an actual differense.

So reallty what it boils down to is this. Global warming in happening, it is just a matter of on what scale it does.

One must really think about what is costs to move an entire village as is the cost right now. If someone can justify the costs so be it. In the meantime, Those who live here can see and justify for themselves problems associated with global warming, they need to.

 

[palerider]

This site disputes that, saying that "the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years". -

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/​

Old science. Outdated science. Incorrect science. How do you continue to justify holding positions when the information upon which you base them is so often wrong? I can tell you how, you believe what you are told and, in fact, spend very little, if any, time at all on your own corroborating and verifying what you have been told. It is you, my fine bucko, who has jumped on a bandwagon and is just along for the ride because your friends have invited you.


The fact is that according to a new study by nasa, the figures provided to you by Stephen McIntyre which claim that 1998 is the warmest year on record are wrong. An error was found in the dataset and when corrected, it was discovered that 1934 was the warmest year on record and 4 of the warmest 10 years date back to the 1930's and only 3 from the past 10 years. Quite embarrasing for alarmists, if you ask me, since you are quick to point out that 80% of the manmade CO2 emissions date from after 1940.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/new_rankings_for_warmest_years/

And isn't it interesting that just a bit more than a millenium ago, it was, indeed, warmer than it is today. Considerably warmer and it got warmer considerably faster than any slight temperature rise we are seeing today. Exactly who do you believe was responsible for that?

The fact is that smaller warming and cooling trends are, and always have been a part of the larger warming and cooling trends. They are natural, and there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that the trends we are experiencing are in any way unusual or un natural.

 

[top gun]

Please provide me with one source that says pollution is a good thing. I'm going to ignore your next post unless it has a link or a quote in it.

Hello........ sarcasm! Although the point I'm making is excessive carbon emissions ARE pollution. Now some group doesn't see any problem with that... now what group might that be...

 

[palerider]

Popeye what do you say... I say we all jump on the neo-con pollution is a good thing BANDWAGON!!!

No one is suggesting that pollution is a good thing. Pollution and global climate change are two different things and anyone who believes that pollution is causing climate change when, in fact, there isn't a shred of evidence to support that position is the one who has hopped on a bandwagon.

Everything is GREAT! Carbon emissions are good. Heck even a nuclear war is nothing the planet can't handle with one hand tied behind it's back. It's all just rosy!!!

Are you aware (of course not ] that the entire anthropogenic CO2 output of every nation on earth is not even enough to overcome the natural deviation in the earth's own CO2 generation machinery from year to year? And every single ice core study ever done shows a lag of between 600 and 1000 years between temperature rises and elevated CO2 levels. Do you have any idea what that means? (of course you don't ) It means, oh uninformed and unscientific one, that rising CO2 levels are the RESULT of rising temperatures, not the CAUSE.

Learn something and when you are prepared to debate the science rather than just parrot what some scientists who have sold their credibility for a new BMW and 8,000 square feet in an upscale neighborhood have told you, let me know.

 

[palerider]

What about the additional monies being involved which are signifigant in a adressing the problem? For instance, my community has $10m set aside for those purposes. In the meantime, erosition control would cost $100m to make an actual differense.

So reallty what it boils down to is this. Global warming in happening, it is just a matter of on what scale it does.

One must really think about what is costs to move an entire village as is the cost right now. If someone can justify the costs so be it. In the meantime, Those who live here can see and justify for themselves problems associated with global warming, they need to.

Of course global warming is happening. No one that understands the science would say that it isn't. We aren't causing it, however, and putting money into trying to stop a global change is even more idiotic than spending money in an effort to stop a local natural event like an earthquake, or a tornado, or a hruricaine. We know what is coming, and honest scientists know that we aren't causing it.

Money should be spent, but not on pie in the sky plans to halt a natural global cycle. We should be spending money now to prepare for what is coming. Look at new orleans if you want to see the eventual futility of trying to hold back rising sea levels. It would be far cheaper today to simply help people relocate from areas that are going to be effected. We can't stop it any more than we can stop a hurricaine but we can predict which areas are going to be hardest hit and help them out now.

Money shoud be spent looking into, and developing technology that will make life more comfortable for us in the coming summer rather than flushing money down the toilet trying to stop the natural and inevetable transition from spring to summer.

 

[palerider]

Hello........ sarcasm! Although the point I'm making is excessive carbon emissions ARE pollution. Now some group doesn't see any problem with that... now what group might that be...

Once again, the entire CO2 output of the human race is not even enough to overcome the natural deviation of the earth's CO2 making machinery from year to year. The sky is not falling. We know from history that the earth warms and cools. We know that it is warming and that it would be warming whether we are here or not. If you want to do something, then start preparing for summer rather than trying to prevent the natural transition from spring to summer.