Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

by Matt Martin | 132 Comments
October 12, 2007, 9:02 am | Category: White House '08 | Tags: .

132 Responses to “Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  • Kerosene Hat
    October 12, 2007 at 9:16 am

    I still think the Buddhist monks in Myanmar were more deserving. There is nothing more important in the pursuit of peace than truly non violent, life risking resistance to oppression. The Peace Prize though tends to still be more about white western folk trying to feel good about themselves rather than an objective analysis.

  • Matt
    October 12, 2007 at 9:37 am

    The Peace Prize is kind of like the Oscars: it’s rare that the most deserving movie that year wins best picture, but usually it’s still a pretty dang good movie.

    Although, most of the best picture awards in the last decades have been given to awful tripe… so I guess my analogy falls apart a bit because Al Gore’s awesome.

  • bajonimi
    October 12, 2007 at 9:43 am

    I just read that George Bush is being considered for the Ann Coulter “My Pet Goat” award.

  • Mockingbird
    October 12, 2007 at 9:51 am

    The Buddhist monks are a good candidate, but were they eligible for this one, this time?

    They could have been co-winners.

  • wtm
    October 12, 2007 at 10:10 am

    Yes, the Nobel Peace Prize is like the Oscars — liberals congratulating and back-slapping other liberals for being liberals.

  • GOP Optimist
    October 12, 2007 at 10:11 am

    I used to respect Al Gore, back in the mid-80’s and early 90’s — -you know, when he was a moderate Democrat and preeminient figure within the Democratic Leadership Council.

    I didn’t always agree with his ideas, but I respected his mind’s independence and I thought he occasionally made a lot of sense to the undecided voter.

    Since 2000, it is clear that he has stopped taking his Lithium medication.

    Not only did he back the truck over Sen. Joe Lieberman in 2004, but he further proceeded to spin the tires over him after publically endorsing Howard Dean.

    I found that to be disresepectful to his former running mate and viewed it as a real slap in the face to a strong and honest official in Lieberman.

    This time, the world has been slapped in the face by the committee that awards the Nobel Peace Prize.

    With all due respect to Gore — who if nothing more, is leading the charge to draw attention to an issue that he feels very strongly about. I commend that, even if I disagree with his suppositions.

    But,how are we supposed to admire the recipients of this award when the past winners can be considered dubious, at best?

    Jimmy Carter?
    Nice try.

    Yasser Arafat?
    Don’t get me started on this terrorist.

    Al Gore?
    How are we associating a movie explaining his opinions on Global Warming with the humanitarian efforts of Mother Teresa?

    What’s next?
    The Peace Prize to Michael Moore for a movie denouncing war?

    Well, I gues Al is just recieving his due form the liberal establishment.

    For a man who invented the internet, I guess I should commend him.

    Yeah.

  • John S
    October 12, 2007 at 10:19 am

    Tough question. I honestly don’t know what to think on this one.

    I can see the benefit of using the prize as a carrot for those who have and have had political power. Dropping incentives in the paths of those who can use power for the status quo or for change is something with more long-term effect than rewarding individual virtue.

    But then I don’t think I was the only one awed by the dignity, humanity, and courage of those Burmese monks. Using the Prize to make sure that actions like that are honored and remembered makes it more likely that something good will end up coming of them.

    Hard things to argue with either way. But anyway, now for the political hack speculation - does this mean he trys to be the first laureate-President? Would add some excitement to the race.

  • bajonimi
    October 12, 2007 at 10:21 am

    Oh, honey, take a pill. Joe Lieberman, a strong and honest official? You’re living in suburban Zimbabwe, right?

  • Nitro
    October 12, 2007 at 11:24 am

    Al Gore said he invented the internet?

    really?

    Here’s what Gore acually said that got him in trouble…

    “BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let’s just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.

    Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn’t necessarily bring to this process?

    GORE: Well, I will be offering — I’ll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.

    But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I’ve traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”

    Who came up with the word “invented”? Not Al Gore.

    Distorting reality sure is effective on gullible people who want to believe it, however “taking the initiative” is not the same as “invented”. Do you righties care?…of course not. All most of you trolls care about is distorting reality to fit political goals.

    That is just one of many reasons I encourage righties to keep it up. Don’t ever stop your right wing truthiness from pouring out of your quivering lips. Ultimately, it now is you righties who are being judged and scrutinized by the American people, finally, and I relish every minute of that.

  • Eva
    October 12, 2007 at 11:27 am

    Bravo, Nitro.

  • Blogger
    October 12, 2007 at 11:45 am

    To me, the Nobel Peace Prize should reflect a lifetime of effort, a massive body of work, that culminates in the world become a step closer to peace.

    What Gore did was have a long career on Capitol Hill, distinguished in many areas but I wouldn’t have called him someone who stood out among his colleagues. He was as partisan and political as the next guy. Then he ran for President. Again, nothing about his campaign that made him standout as a peace angel. Then, he made a movie and went on the lecture circuit about a cause he believes in.

    It makes me wonder if all that is standing between a Nobel Peace Prize and competent Senators like Lieberman, John Warner, Dick Lugar, Kent Conrad, or Tom Coborn is a successful documentary upon retirement. Doesn’t seem that far out of reach.

    I’m not trying to discredit Gore — more people should inject their passion into the public discourse. But his achievement seems more like something a prestigous University would offer an Honorary Degree for, or an Organization may see as grounds to induct into him their Hall of Fame, than being reason to give a Nobel Peace Prize.

  • wtm
    October 12, 2007 at 11:51 am

    Nitro,

    Uh, nice editing there, pal. You conveniently left out the word “creating” in your selective editing. Gore’s statement is: “I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”

    The word “create” means to produce by imagination, which, incidentally, is the same meaning of “invent.”

    For a party whose standard-bearer couldn’t even define what the word “is” is, your caterwauling about distorting the meaning of words is utterly ridiculous, particulary in this context, which is completely accurate.

  • Nitro
    October 12, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    wtm

    I didn’t edit a thing. Here’s the transcript from CNN.

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/

    And I did say in my post..

    “But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I’ve traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system”

    So tell me what the hell your talking about, unless you’re simply trying to create your own reality.

    Why should we trust people who lie?

  • GOP Optimist
    October 12, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    WTM, 100% agree with your take on the definition of “is.”

    Nitro — in the grand scheme of the debate over real common sense solutions for economic and foreign policy in a post-911 world, I’ll roll the dice with conservatives any day of the week.

    Truth be told, the Democrats have some ideas that would appeal to the moderate thinker or undecided voter.

    But if you really believe that Hillary Clinton is the one solid candidate to sell them, I’ve got 50+% of the country that think you’re crazy.

    Edwards, yeah — right.

    B. Hussein Obama, keep the faith man.

    At one moment in time, Al Gore could’ve taken the country on his back.

    Later, he abandoned serious policy initiatives and spoke with a tone by someone blinded by his own ideology.

    Bill Clinton won with a strategy known as triangulation, perfected by his experiences from the DLC.

    Fact: No Democrat will win in ‘08 by embracing ideas and ideology eminating from MoveOn or DailyKos.

    Reach for the middle with sincerity and common sense solutions, and that candidate might have a shot.

    Sincerity —  — Thy name noth be Clinton.

  • wtm
    October 12, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    Nitro,

    You wrote: “’[T]aking the initiative’ is not the same as ‘invented’.” I then wrote in response that you left out the remainder of Gore’s sentence, which is “in creating the internet.” That portion of the sentence is the critical portion because, as I stated in my response, “create” and “invent” mean the same thing — to produce by imagination. Hence, the assertion that Gore claims he “invented” the internet is not, as you or others claim, substantively false.

  • Randy
    October 12, 2007 at 12:28 pm

    wtm — According to that notorious leftist and Democratic partisan Newt Gingrich:

    In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is … I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got there, we were both part of a ‘futures group.’ The fact is, in the Clinton administration the world we had talked about in the ’80s began to actually happen. You can see it in your own life, between the Internet, the computer, the cellphone.

  • Eva
    October 12, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    It’s always fascinating to me when conservatives think Hillary Clinton is a flaming liberal.

    I also believe the reason Al Gore “lost” (i.e. didn’t win by enough) is he tried too hard to triangulate instead of speaking with passion and principle.

    And since the “common sense” conservative solution to economic solutions seems to be to bankrupt the country and to foreign policy solutions seems to be to make everyone hate us and call off the search for the perpetrator of 9/11 (remember him?), I’ll stick with the liberals.

  • k
    October 12, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    God, not the “Gore invented the Internet” canard again.

    People such as wtm intentionally use that misquotation in order to imply that Gore claimed to have invented the technology behind the internet. In fact, he was taking credit, which he well deserved, for fashioning the legislation that allowed DARPAnet to become the Internet. Those familiar with the history of the internet know that Gore’s claim is legitimate and wtm’s counterclaim is substantively false.

  • Kerosene Hat
    October 12, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    “Taking the initiative to create” can be considered synonymous with the word “invent”. But yes, to be fair to Gore he was actually one of many important figures in producing the start of the internet. Gore got himself in trouble by not qualifying a statement and making it sound as though he were the primary or only person involved in the initiative to create the internet. The Republican spin masters took the statement (one that was a likely simply a poor choice of words) and did what both sides do. Made it a much bigger deal than it was.

    No matter what you think of Gore I find it hard to see how he could be more deserving than those monks who are putting their lives on the line by peacefully standing up to a violent group of dictators. Giving them the prize had a chance to bring attention to a cause that has few recourses. Gore has plenty of money and support to get his message out and will benefit little from more accolades.

  • Nitro
    October 12, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    You’re splitting hairs, wtm,

    Fact is, Al certainly did not claim to invent the internet, period. Only a complete idiot would pad a resume like that. It was the beginning of the right wing nuts finding out they could wield a huge amount of political power shooting the messenger rather than the message.

    Remember the vandalism of the White House and Air Force one stories? You righties took those hook line and sinker, and continue to this day with weird bizarre smears about haircuts and usa pins, cleavage and other crap that shoots the messenger and completely destroys the message (only for people like you). It’s definately a worn out, tired way of winning elections, that’s my point. If you disagree with me or ignore me that’s fine. I encourage you to continue to play your political smear games.

    Personally, I find it all to be quite funny. I use quotes by you trolls here quite often.

    My advice to you righties is that you need to give up focusing on those stretches of your imaginations and start focusing on cleaning up the trail of tragedy your party’s policies have left in their wake, please. My children are counting on you.

  • wtm
    October 12, 2007 at 1:11 pm

    And, defining what the meaning of “is” is isn’t splitting hairs?

  • Eva
    October 12, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    Do people honestly think the Swedish Nobel Committee is a tool of the liberal establishment?

    You know that just because Fox says something, doesn’t make it true, right?

  • John S
    October 12, 2007 at 1:21 pm

    GOP Optimist-

    Last I heard, Obama’s faith was Methodist. We can argue network biases forever, but the fact remains that Fox tends to simply make crap like that up on a regular basis. I advise you not go by middle names - your own middle name probably once seemed quite outlandish to the WASP puritans who first settled this place.

  • DantheMan
    October 12, 2007 at 1:21 pm

    Good Grief! 3 arguments people need to give up:

    1) The discussion about “what is ‘is’”? If I were being interviewed under other, and my words were going to be scrutinized by the legal community, Darn right I’d be clarifying what I’m about to answer. But it has been early 10 years! Let it go!

    2) Gore being the father of the internet. I’ve seen transcripts that contradict each other. Which reliable source is the “official” one? The point is, Gore always had a reputation for embelishing, and this particular story really caught on with the average Joe.

    3) Gore didn’t lose the election. This wasn’t a fast one pulled on the American public. The electoral college has been the agreed-upon way of settling the Presidential election for centuries. It wasn’t exactly a last-minute introduction so the Republicans could win in a conspiracy.

  • SeanH
    October 12, 2007 at 1:34 pm

    “The point is, Gore always had a reputation for embelishing,”

    A reputation created out of thin air by the “liberal” media.

  • Eva
    October 12, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    Oh, and I’ll take “I took the initiative in creating the internet” over “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” any day. It’s amazing how interested in veracity the righties are when it’s picayune.

  • wtm
    October 12, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    Good point, Dan, which is the point I make — the parsing of words as a political shield or weapon is not unusual or unfair in the political world.

  • DantheMan
    October 12, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    “”The point is, Gore always had a reputation for embelishing,” A reputation created out of thin air by the “liberal” media.”

    I’m so sorry that the media singled Al Gore out and ruined is Presidential run. Why did they have to pick on him when the leave everyone else alone…. oh wait. McCain is a hothead. Fred Thompson is lazy. Kerry was a handwringer. Hillary is cold and calculated. Romney is chameleon. Guiliani has poor values.

    This is politics. Being labeled as an embellisher isn’t all that bad. Could be ALOT worse.

  • John S
    October 12, 2007 at 1:58 pm

    A definite point there DantheMan - We’re all proving that, for all the embellishment, there is an internet. I have yet to see anything of the sort for the existence of WMDs. All told, I’ll take embellishment over truthiness any day of the week.

  • DantheMan
    October 12, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    “I’ll take embellishment over truthiness any day of the week.”

    If you’re looking for an argument on that point from this Republican, you’re not going to get one. I agree.

  • John S
    October 12, 2007 at 2:25 pm

    Cool.

  • Chris
    October 12, 2007 at 3:24 pm

    The Nobel Peace Prize lost its luster years ago when it was awarded to a terrorist, Yasser Arafat. Algore “taking the initiative to create the internet” is old news. Anyone who believes that the internet would not have flourished without Gore is smoking rope.

    What’s new news is a British judge ruling that Algore’s movie contains 9 scientific errors creating an impression of “alarmism and exaggeration.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=8

    Just as Algore’s movie was a hoax, so was giving him the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be awarded to people who enhance the human condition. Gore actually promotes depriving people in developing countries of electricity and other “luxuries” because of “global warming” concerns.

  • Eva
    October 12, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    Wow.

  • Chris
    October 12, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Eva said,

    Oh, and I’ll take “I took the initiative in creating the internet” over “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” any day.

    Here is a list of Democrats who said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction:

    Bill Clinton
    Madeline Albright
    Sandy Berger
    Sen. Carl Levin
    Sen. Tom Daschle
    Sen. John Kerry
    Nancy Pelosi
    Sen. Robert Byrd
    Sen. Jay Rockefeller
    Sen. Hillary Clinton
    Sen. Bob Graham
    and…
    AL GORE!!!

  • Eva
    October 12, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    Okay, how about I’d prefer “I took the initiative to blah blah blah” over “We’ll give the inspectors time to do their jobs…”

    And you can list all the Dems you want, and you’re right, anyone who voted to authorize this war has blood on his or her hands, but none of them actually invaded another country on false pretenses.

  • Chris
    October 12, 2007 at 4:54 pm

    Eva,

    The weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq by Saddam for more than four years prior to the invasion and you wanted them to have more time? It’s pretty amazing the way the left has re-written Iraq. I think you people would actually prefer if Saddam were back in power. As for this false pretenses crap, how can you say we invaded Iraq on false pretenses when our policy toward Iraq, as adopted by Clinton, GORE, Albright, Berger, et al. was to change the regime in Iraq because of WMDs.

    Here are the questions that need to be asked today. Why didn’t Saddam disclose what happened with his WMD programmes - as required by International Law? Why did every single intelligence agency in the world (the U.S., Great Britian, Israel, France, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) all say Saddam had WMDs? And why is it that the left is banking on ensuring defeat in Iraq for electoral gain in 2008?

  • DantheMan
    October 12, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    Losing the election was the best thing that ever happened to Al Gore. First, he went undergound for several months as he re-energized and got his weight back. Then, he re-emerges into the public eye with a large amount of sympathy built-up. People generally wanted to see him rebound. He took full advantage of that by hitting the lecture circuit, making far more than he would have as president. Then he makes a movie, wins an Oscar, and now a Nobel Prize!

    And to think that had he been elected, he would likely still be in office with all of those pressures and skeptics!

    If I were Al, there is no way I run for President. Control of your schedule, the ability to pick and choose your causes, money, fame…. what more would you want?

  • Dan
    October 12, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    I think that everyone agrees that Al Gore played an important role in the creation of internet. He was years ahead of anyone else in the political sphere as far as realizing its potential. While Al Gore was working on promoting and funding the internet, George Bush was pretty much just drunk. One would think you could look at what these guys were doing 15-20 years before running for president and make an easy choice.

    The problem is that Al Gore did not articulate this position very well, and got hammered for it. Even his actual quote leaves room for interpretation. You can complain about the media distorting him, but that’s what the media does and its never going to change. Gore (and politicians in general) have to be very careful about what they say. And if they aren’t, they are going to lose elections, even when they should win on issues and qualifications.

    To our conservative friends: whether or not Gore got hosed, Bush became president. Can’t you let the guy have his nobel peace prize?

  • Chris
    October 12, 2007 at 5:32 pm

    Dan,

    “While Al Gore was working on promoting and funding the internet, George Bush was pretty much just drunk.” And you complain about the media destorting things. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    The real truth about the internet was that it was first established for military purposes. Here is a link to the history of the internet.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

  • SeanH
    October 12, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    “The real truth about the internet was that it was first established for military purposes. Here is a link to the history of the internet”

    And Gore was instrumental in getting it out to the real world.

    “No one person or even small group of persons exclusively “invented” the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

    Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he “invented” the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. ”

    Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

  • john
    October 12, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    The murderous PIG Yassir Arafat also won the Nobel Perace prize, just food for thought, yes Eva, it is a Socialist thing, only folks who are propagating World Socialism are considered

  • Demure One
    October 12, 2007 at 7:31 pm

    The moment that stands out to me in Gore’s flick is when scientists are drilling an ice core sample in Alaska and they state something along the lines of “Look you can see when the Clean Air Act was implemented” At that moment I was sitting in my seat thinking “say Nixon…say Nixon…he made that possible - make this non-partisan - bring GOPers to the table..Nixon got it - he created the endangered species act - point out that this is part of GOP tradition” Did that happen? No…of course not. The Republicans — until the Bush administrations (including George…and yes Ronald Regan) have been instrumental in creating really important environmental policy and Gore totally pissed that point away. Why? Global warming is important….but partisan politics are also key.

  • john
    October 12, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    Al Gore has a history of lying, not just embellishing

  • Nitro
    October 12, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    john,

    Could you share with the group what Al Gore’s list of lies are?

    Please?

    Try to find some recent stuff, and let’s see some links.

    Thank You.

  • john
    October 12, 2007 at 7:53 pm

    he claimed to have done 3000 town hall meetings in tennesee, the actual number was less than 200 (if he had done 3000 he would have carried Tn in 2000, lucky for us he did not) he claimed to be lullabbied to sleep by some union song that was written in 1975,,,Gore was 27 at the time, his pitiful movie “Convenient Lies” is chock full of them…

  • Nitro
    October 12, 2007 at 8:02 pm

    Um…I don’t see any cross references or sources, John. You can find a gold mine of lies about Al on the internet previous to 2000, and many of them do not even provide sources or context. This was during the right wing’s “happy time” where truthiness was embraced by the right and was bought into by a willing public. It’s no longer a happy time for the righties. There is no longer a large group of Americans who don’t question the information they are spoon fed.

    What I’m looking for are some recent lies and their source or some links. Debunk his film with more than just name calling, for example, and please provide sources for your debunking. I’d like some people here to see that information.

    Thank You

  • John S
    October 12, 2007 at 8:16 pm

    john-

    World Socialism? Your villains are sooo two decades ago.

  • Nitro
    October 12, 2007 at 8:23 pm

    Here’s a link to Snopes on the validity of the claim that Al Gore said he invented the internet.

    http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

  • Eva
    October 12, 2007 at 8:34 pm

    Oh, and you’re right, Chris, to put global warming in quotes. The polar ice caps were melted by Al Gore and Melissa Ethridge using blowtorchs to advance their sinister anti-business agenda. It’s totally true, Sean Hannity told me so.

  • DantheMan
    October 12, 2007 at 9:44 pm

    Here are three of the elevent inaccuracies that the British Courts found:

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

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

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

  • Richard
    October 12, 2007 at 10:18 pm

    Mr. Gore “is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted,” the Nobel citation said. The United Nations committee, a network of 2,000 scientists, has produced two decades of scientific reports that have “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming,” the citation said.

    2000 scientists. And how large is the opposition group’s stable of scientists? 10’s? 100’s? Actually just a relative handful. Many of whom are bankrolled by the industries that have a vested interest in keeping the smokestacks pumping.

    Gore actually promotes depriving people in developing countries of electricity and other “luxuries” because of “global warming” concerns.

    Here’s yet another example of Chris being a complete and utter moron. Hydrogen technologies are currently being manufactured and sold that will have exactly the opposite effect that Chris is maintaining. Look up Ballard Power and ask yourself what effect will portable self sustaining hydrogen fuel cell power generation will have in remote third world locations. Chris, you really only embarass yourself every time you step up to your keyboard.

  • Kathy
    October 13, 2007 at 12:52 am

    Al Gore being a winner of the Nobel Prize is a good thing.

    The effects of Global Warming has been a concern of his for over 20 years. This is not an issue he just took up recently.

    Good for him.

  • Chris
    October 13, 2007 at 12:59 am

    Nut-ro and Eva,

    You want proof that Gore’s movie is crap, read this article from the U.K. Guardian. A British judge has found nine scientific errors in Gore’s film and has decreed that the movie falsely promotes an alarmist view of global warming that is not backed up by science.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=8

    The judge went so far as to say the movie needed warnings before being viewed in public schools in Great Britian. It’s too bad that our science classes in the U.S. are not doing the same thing.

  • Richard
    October 13, 2007 at 7:53 am

    You want proof that Gore’s movie is crap, read this article from the U.K. Guardian.

    I did and I must say I am decidedly underwelmed. This is what passes for a ringing endorsement for the continued rape of our planet? What I read was there seems to be a need for more research but actions need to be taken now to forestall or delay what may be catastrophic consequences. Honestly, where’s the downside. Let’s imagine for a moment, that we live in the universe where Chris and the rest of the wingnuts are correct. There were WMD in Iraq. Tax cuts for the wealthy do create jobs. You know, opposite world. Anyway, I digress. Let’s imagine that there is no global warming. Human activity has had no effect on climate change. Even given all that, why not work aggresively to reduce, not just C02 emissions but, pollution across the board. I used to be able to eat walleye every night of the week if I wanted to. Now our family physician says my daughter should never eat fish until she stops having kids. Coal burning power plants, like the one they want to put up just across the border, are the major contributors to high mercury levels in our lakes and streams. Here’s the upside to living in reality land. The United States can take the initiative and use the intellectual capital it has regarding alternative and renewable energy production. We can be the country building the wind generators that China will be needing to buy. We can be the country that creates new and innovative solar energy panel materials so we can harvest 70% of the energy available from the sun. If anything, Al Gore is understating, not just the problem, but he’s also understating the potential benefits of pursuing a solution.

  • bajonimi
    October 13, 2007 at 8:01 am

    Saying the planet is a little bit troubled ranks right up there with saying someone is a little bit pregnant.

    I want the flamethrowers here to calm down and make a case for the upside of blowing off the research and prognostications of scientists about global warming aka climate change.

    What are you protecting? What are you afraid of? Why are you perversely locked into your position of denial and blame? Why do you not allow science to supplement your thinking, if not change it altogether? Why have you closed your minds to the possibility of global danger?

    Just asking.

  • Richard
    October 13, 2007 at 8:06 am

    A British judge has found nine scientific errors in Gore’s film and has decreed that the movie falsely promotes an alarmist view of global warming that is not backed up by science.

    No, that’s not what the judge said. Chris, try and get something right.

    Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” to support the former US vice-president’s views on climate chang

    He goes on:

    Despite his finding of significant errors, Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported “by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].”

    Wow, that’s crazy. That’s like exactly the opposite of what Chris said. It’s like he’s from opposite world where Superman is a bad guy and Lex Luther is the hero.

  • Nitro
    October 13, 2007 at 8:10 am

    Some trolls here try to enlighten us with news they assume nobody has heard and expect some sort of epiphany as a result.

    The fact is the right wing media machine is so strong that by the time right wing news makes it here via the trolls it is old news, and that is a consistent reality. The “British judge” story is a great example of just that. We’ve all heard the story hundreds of times, but cherry picking that story doesn’t make Al’s movie irrelevant.

    When shooting the messenger, one must pick facts from a story to suit that goal and ignore the rest. What is ignored by those who present false arguments is that that very Judge who made the ruling calls the film “broadly accurate”. With that in mind, the judge is certainly acknowledging the reality of global warming.

    It is argument by half truth, a method perfected by the right wing, and unfortunately for America that method has been quite successfully used in the past, especially when used for character assassinations.

    Anyone, I don’t care who you are, can have their character destroyed by these techniques. There’s a pretty long list of those who disagreed with the right wing media machine who have had this done to them, including Al Gore. Some stories I will certainly admit are somewhat accurate, such as stories about his mansion, although there again there are some half truths being circulated. There is however a large body of falsehoods and half truths about Al Gore that have been used against him for years.

    What’s different now in America recently is those who tell the half truths have little to no credibility, as the implementation of the policies their false arguments promoted have failed. They are under scrutiny, and with that scrutiny comes a responsibility to the American people for them to prove to us why we should trust them.

    Continuing to try to trick and fool people is not a way to reastore credibility. The ball is in the right wing’s court this time.

  • john
    October 13, 2007 at 9:30 am

    Judge or no judge, his movie is chock full of lies

  • Nitro
    October 13, 2007 at 9:34 am

    john,

    You certainly make a good argument. I’m convinced.

    Great job.

  • Nemoy
    October 13, 2007 at 9:36 am

    In reviewing a thread like this, I get the following impressions of Liberals and Conservatives (I am an Independent and proud of it):

    Liberals: Whiners, conspiracy nuts, and prefer to get into an argument than actually make real change

    Conservatives: Uninformed, hard-headed, and happy to attack someones character if they don’t agree with them

    Is it any surprise that fewer and fewer people identify with a party? You all are viewed as extremists. You are like the “irrelevant 10%” who reside at each end of the political spectrum. I can point to a few voices of reason on this thread, but they are far outnumbered by the nuts.

    Just one gal’s opinion.

  • etoian shrdlu
    October 13, 2007 at 9:50 am

    What is it about Gore that drives wingnuts crazy? In fact, every single charge made that Gore lied that the comments above have cited has been thoroughly debunked. For details look at the Daily Howler’s archives.

    As for the latest lie that a British judge found An Inconvenient Truth riddled with scientific errors, Tim Lambert does a pretty thorough refutation here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/dodgy_news_limited_survey.php

    What is striking about the anti-Gore rhetoric is just how knee-jerk and intellectually lazy it is. I realize finding out the truth takes a little work, but if you aren’t willing to make the effort then you yourself are effectively spreading lies.

  • Eva
    October 13, 2007 at 10:09 am

    Do you guys really, seriously think that global warming is a hoax? I mean, seriously?

  • DantheMan
    October 13, 2007 at 10:14 am

    Not a hoax — no, not at all. Science has definately proven a warming phenomenon. Only the most ignorant of us claim that.

    Contrary to popular belief, most Republicans value scientific learning. We like numbers and proof. We like it in Ecomonics, in Social Sciences, and in traditional sciences.

    What I’m saying is that no one person is omnicient on this matter — Al Gore makes a compelling point but his argument has flaws. Same for other scientists. Same for the school of thought that is trying to prove that Global Warming is a natural cycle. All are Theories — and theories are tested and flaws are found, as in Gore’s. It doesn’t mean the whole argument is invalid. It just means we shouldn’t all point to Gore and say “That man is 100% right!! He is the chosen one!! Given him the Nobel!!

  • Nitro
    October 13, 2007 at 10:46 am

    Some top Republicans on Al’s Nobel Peace Prize.

    George W. Bush
    “Is that like the Publishers Clearing House prize? And what piece of it did he win?”

    Bill Bennett
    “Damn!!! I had my money on the Dali Lama. My bookie gave me 10-1 odds. And Please remember to buy my book ‘The Death of Outrage’ about the moral decay in America. I really need the cash. The casinos won’t accept my markers any more”.

    Rudy Giuliani
    “9/11, 9/11, 9/11, Gore, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, Nobel, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, Prize, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11”

    Dick Cheney
    “Al, I am your father!”

    Mitt Romney
    “This is a good thing for america…or maybe it’s a bad thing…or it could be a good thing. Umm…Let me check the polls in Iowa and get back to you.”

    Ann Coulter
    “Gore is a fag! But at least he’s not jewish!”

    Fred Thompson
    “Go away it’s time for my afternoon nap.”

    Bill O’Reilly
    “I saw a black man reading about Gore’s Nobel prize it in the newspaper. I tell you I was shocked. A black man reading a newspaper just like a white man. Unbelievable!”

    Mike Huckabee
    Gore is an alarmist. If this earth gets to warm, God will create another one for us. It only takes him a week.”

  • djz
    October 13, 2007 at 11:14 am

    Didn’t Bush senior call Al Gore (calling him Algore is a Limbaugh thing, so you know where Chris gets his ‘science’ talking points. from that fatass, draft dodging, pill popping, troop hating, college dropout) Ozone Man in 1992 because of his work and words on global warming? Yes (15 years ago). Didn’t Gore write a book called Earth in Balance back in the late 80’s? Yes.

    He’s been leading the charge on this for at least 20 years. The GOP got nothing but a string of Jib Jab parodies to point to as evidence of their service.

    Give it up Haters.

  • john
    October 13, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    he is still Ozone man.. rush hates the troops??..that is rich

  • john
    October 13, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    nitro, your Bill oreilly talking points are flat wrong.. did you actually take the time to read what he said, and in what context??.. he was simply making the point that not all blacks are as depicted by some folks, he was not surprised that blacks are smart, can be well dressed, or can be well behaved, he was pointing out the fact that, they are, indeed.. Ignoramus

  • john
    October 13, 2007 at 12:21 pm

    Eva, yes, I believe it to be a huge hoax, in 10 years we will know who is right or wrong, when the coastal cities will not be flooded

  • Chris
    October 13, 2007 at 1:25 pm

    djz,

    I have to laugh when you call me a hater, because you’ve said some pretty hateful things yourself on MDE. I merely pointed out the fact that a British judge has ruled that schools in Great Britian have to warn children that Algore’s movie is filled with scientific errors.

    As for the rest of the argument about Global Warming, we do know a few things. We know that the temperature has risen about one degree centigrade in the last 100 years. We also know that the warmest year on record (meaning in the last 150 or so years) was 1934 not 1998. We also know that parts of the world, including our own State, were under a sheet of ice about 20,000 years ago and are not under a sheet of ice today. We also know that parts of the world were lush and green (like the State of Nevada) and are desert today. If youthink that human activity causes the planet to go through hot and cold cycles, you’re dumb. Is there warming? On a small scale yes. But the question is how much of the warming is caused by human activity versus solar activity versus underwater volcanic activity.

  • john
    October 13, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    also Greenland was warmer in 1941 than it is today, in 1936 the Mississippi River was nearly dry from drought, what caused the glaciers to recede 20,000 years ago? a warming cycle perhaps, not man made, Dingbats

  • Nitro
    October 13, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/glob_jan-dec-error-bar_pg.gif

  • DantheMan
    October 13, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    I’m not trying to discredit Al Gore. I say ‘nice job’ for advancing a cause — any worthwhile cause. And understanding Global Warming is certainly worthwhile.

    I agree with another poster, though, that for Al Gore to win the Nobel Prize, I fully expect about 15-20 other Democrat and Republican Senators to get a Nobel prize a few years into their retirement as well. Take an issue you advocated, make a documentary or do the speaking circuit, and you should have qualified, based upon the bar that they set with Al.

  • Chris
    October 13, 2007 at 2:48 pm

    Nut-ro,

    http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-14-2007/0004645546&EDATE=

    DALLAS, Aug. 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The warmest year on record is no longer 1998 and not because it has been overtaken by a recent heat wave. NASA scientist James Hansen’s famous claims about 1998 being the warmest year on record in the U.S. was the result of a serious math error, according to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). NASA has now corrected the error, anointing 1934 as the warmest year and 1921 as the third warmest year, not 2006 as previously claimed.

    According to NASA’s newly published data:
     — The hottest year on record is 1934, not 1998;
     — The third hottest year on record was 1921, not 2006;
     — Three of the five hottest years on record occurred before 1940; and
     — Six of the top 10 hottest years occurred before 90 percent of the growth in greenhouse
    gas emissions during the last century occurred.

    NASA’s ground based temperature records for the past 120 years, which have been the basis for most of the claims that global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate, almost entirely due to human actions, have now been corrected to show that much of the warming occurred before CO2 emissions and concentrations began to rise significantly.

  • Nitro
    October 13, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    Some trolls here try to enlighten us with news they assume nobody has heard and expect some sort of epiphany as a result.

    The fact is the right wing media machine is so strong that by the time right wing news makes it here via the trolls it is old news, and that is a consistent reality. The “NASA” story is a great example of just that. We’ve all heard the story hundreds of times, but cherry picking that story doesn’t make Al’s movie irrelevant.

    There’s a huge library of data at NASA that conflicts with any assertion that the data presented in that NASA story refutes the concept of global warming being a reality.

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthandsun/climate_change.html

  • Nitro
    October 13, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    Here’s what James Hansen, of NASA, says of that story so referred to by he righties.

    http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/16/must-read-from-hansen-stop-the-madness-about-the-tiny-revision-in-nasas-temperature-data/

    Thnk Progress gives their two cents

    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/16/global-warming-denial/

    There’s plenty more on that story, look it up.

  • Nitro
    October 13, 2007 at 3:31 pm

    Here’s some background on the National Center for Policy Analysis.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis

  • Nitro
    October 13, 2007 at 3:34 pm

    “Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, an organization that has received over $390,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. This afternoon on Fox, Burnett compared watching Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, to watching a movie by Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels to learn about Nazi Germany.”

    Story here.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/23/gore-movie-g/

  • Chris
    October 13, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    Nut-ro,

    How funny is it that you’re claiming my sources are biased when your sources, (don’t) think progress, source wretch and the like are shills paid by George Soros and other far left billionaires.

    NASA corrected the numbers which showed 1934 was in fact the hottest year on record. There is no changing that fact. Algore’s movie is propaganda. His apocalyptic vision is not supported by science. Moreover, he made up out of whole cloth stories about polar bears drowning from melting icebergs. It didn’t happen.

  • bajonimi
    October 13, 2007 at 4:27 pm

    And so I ask one last time — apart from the obvious joy of perpetual smackdown, why are you so afraid of global warming evidence? Give us specifics. Tell us the upside of ignoring everything that has been proved and posited to this point. Tell us why Al Gore and countless scientists and environmentalists have devoted most of their adult lives to making peace with the environment. Make a case for turning your back on global warming. Give up the vicious attack mode and debate this issue like adults.

  • John S
    October 13, 2007 at 4:58 pm

    We interrupt this program for a small discussion of basic statistics.

    In statistics, an out-lier is a data-point where the real-world where the randomness of the world produces some crazy result. The eight-foot tall basketball player. The time in a 5-card poker game where you got a straight flush on the deal, after years of thinking three of a kind was really neat. A flipped coin coming up heads 27 times in a row. Possible, but not probable.

    A trend on the other hand, is when a number of data points are all saying the same thing. There might be one or two outliers, but if you are attempting to chart a phenomenon, a trend is a far better way to go.

    We now return you to the discussion, with a word from our sponsor.

    Nitpick all you like, but Inconvenient Truth has identified a trend, one which, despite a few things taken out of context, is very much true. Sure, you can find a warm year or an unusually cool year here or there, especially around times of heavy vulcanism. But the over all trend of the evidence says Gore is right.

    To take a few outliers and say they are the trend on global warming sounds a lot more tenable than saying ‘average height is seven feet tall’. But its roughly the same thing. Planning off of these outliers is like taking every penny you’ve earned to the Friday night poker game, mortgage money and all, because since you got pocket aces once, you’re going to get them every hand.

  • DantheMan
    October 13, 2007 at 5:24 pm

    Two different arguments going on here:

    - Is there global warming (my answer along with most of the population, is “yes, it appears that there is”

    - Did Al Gore deserve a Nobel Peace Prize for what he did? (my answer is ‘no way’ - unless he did a whole lot of things outside of the Senate and his recent documentary / lecturing work that I don’t know about)

  • etoian shrdlu
    October 13, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    Dan,

    I am sorry, but this is BS:

    The problem is that Al Gore did not articulate this position very well, and got hammered for it. Even his actual quote leaves room for interpretation. You can complain about the media distorting him, but that’s what the media does and its never going to change. Gore (and politicians in general) have to be very careful about what they say. And if they aren’t, they are going to lose elections, even when they should win on issues and qualifications.

    Gore actually articulated the position just fine, the media essentially lied about what he said. There is no such thing as a quote that does not leave room for interpretation. Why is it too much to expect the media not to lie to us?

  • etoian shrdlu
    October 13, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    Moreover, he made up out of whole cloth stories about polar bears drowning from melting icebergs. It didn’t happen.

    Wow, so no polar bears have never drowned or if they did you know for a fact and can provide documentation to effect that melting icebergs had nothing to do with it. Impressive.

  • john
    October 13, 2007 at 7:58 pm

    4 polar bears drwoned in a strorm, not by trying to find ice, equally impressive is proving polar bears drownded because of global warming…. wearming and cooling is cyclical..what melted the glaciers 20000 years ago? i remember my grand parents talking about 1934 being horribly hot… ever hear of the Dust Bowl in the 30s? The reason we are trying to discredit Global warming fanatiocs is because the ywant to raise our taxes, and the cost of electricty with idiotic wind mills, and take away out high power SUVs

  • wtm
    October 13, 2007 at 9:27 pm

    Thinkprogress versus NASA…hmmm, who is less biased and has more legitimacy? I’ll take NASA for $200, Alex.

    Considering how dire the global warming situation apparently is right now, I am still surprised the lefties are still posting responses here and sucking up even more electricity and destroying the earth. What heartless and reckless behavior.

  • Dan
    October 13, 2007 at 9:53 pm

    Chirs, from like 50 comments up. Here is what the guys who actually invented the Internet say about Al Gore:

    [A]s the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he “invented” the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept.”

    Again, Al Gore was doing this. And George Bush was pretty much just drunk.

  • Dan
    October 13, 2007 at 10:08 pm

    Etoian:

    “Why is it too much to expect the media not to lie to us?”

    Because this is the real world and that is what the media does. You can accept that and deal with it. Or you can pretend its not true or that the media should be held to a higher standard. John Kerry tried tried expecting more from the media when the Swiftboat attacks came, and look how that turned out.

    I don’t know why Democrats can’t figure this out. We are going to nominate a Senate candidate who the media is going to completely destroy. No one seems to care that Franken has no chance of winning. Do people really think that the media is going to buy his satire explanation? When are we going to learn?

  • Tanuki
    October 13, 2007 at 10:45 pm

    wtm, I’ll also take NASA. I’m with you 100%. Say, Nitro, what was that link you posted to the NASA climate change page? Oh yeah…

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/earthandsun/climate_change.html

    And john…I’m not quite sure what to say about your last post. People who can spell tend to accept climate change as scientific fact. And how does supplementing nuclear and coal power with wind make electricity more expensive?!?

    Don’t get me wrong, we need the massive base load that power plants provide, and I don’t see us being able to replace them in our lifetimes. But there’s absolutely a place for small-scale power production. Personally, I’m keeping my eye on wind generators for my cabin; prices have been dropping for years. Hooked up to a deep cell battery, I can quit forking over a small fortune to Xcel every time I turn the lights on up there.

    Finally, as to tax money being spent in these areas, the most interesting research is being done by DARPA, for the US military. Think of the logistical advantages to scrapping half the Army’s diesel generators. Translated into our current situation in Iraq, that’s half as many convoys hauling diesel fuel around, requiring security. Beyond generators, a modern soldiers combat load just keeps on increasing, and all the electronics run on batteries. Think of the advantages to trimming that load via solar cells. Point being, the advantages to alternative energy technologies aren’t just environmental.

  • DantheMan
    October 13, 2007 at 10:52 pm

    The left’s insistence on no more nuclear power is creating the effect of heavier reliance on fossil fuels. They are adding to the very problem that they somehow think they are fighting against.

  • Tanuki
    October 13, 2007 at 11:06 pm

    That’s a fair point, but only to a certain extent. The monolithic left that conservatives like to point to is actually home to a sharp division on this topic. I can’t for the life of me remember his name, but one of the founders of Greenpeace has come out very heavily for expanded nuclear power, and has attracted a decent following among the more rational wing of the environmental movement.

  • Tanuki
    October 13, 2007 at 11:12 pm

    Ah, here he is:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

  • DantheMan
    October 14, 2007 at 8:59 am

    That’s right, Tanuki. The anti-nuclear sentiment is not pervasive among the Left but is the prevailing plank on the platform right now. I think Franken is open-minded about Nuclear energy, which makes me respect that he is weighing these issues on their merits.

    The French lead the pack on nuclear energy, using standard, safe plant designs that our Universities have perfected. They have come a long way since 3-mile Island.

    This issue has become so toxic (pun intended). If both parties would show a willingness to learn a little — the Left understanding that Nuclear energy is a very viable alternative to burning coal, and the Right acknowledging that there could be a link to human activity and global warming — then we could get somewhere.

  • etoian shrdlu
    October 14, 2007 at 9:40 am

    Dan,

    I have a better idea, why don’t we try defending our candidates against lies rather than shrugging our shoulders and giving up? The Republicans understand that the media responds to pressure. Why don’t Democrats?

  • etoian shrdlu
    October 14, 2007 at 9:51 am

    john, I see, so only four polar bears have ever drowned and that was because of a storm. You know because you saw it yourself. That is why you are unable to provide citations unlike Gore who can provide citations for everything in his talk. What a convincing refutation!

  • Richard
    October 14, 2007 at 9:56 am

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/

    Nasa would be a less biased if it were not being turned into yet another wing of the nutty right wing war on science.

  • john
    October 14, 2007 at 11:51 am

    did Gore see any dead polar bears?..and did he dio autopsies on them to determine cause of death? even his fellow global warming nut cases laugh at his 20 rising sea prediction…. in 10 years he will be irrelevant..Tanuka.are you saying I cannot spell?..i just cannot type..so what…most scientists are atheists, so I do not find them credible…Wind energy would be more expensive if used on a massive scale, coal is dirt cheap, and plentiful.. it is a shame a resource given to us by God will forever go unused..much like oil in the Arctic wasteland… running solar generators in iraq will NOT cut desiel use in half.. it is not possible to operate tanks and Bradleys on wind power

  • john
    October 14, 2007 at 11:53 am

    Scientists have declared a war on our way of life..so.. payback is a bitch

  • etoian shrdlu
    October 14, 2007 at 12:33 pm

    john,

    You are not making any sense at all. Gore cited studies where others made careful observations. You cite nothing. You just repeat fifth-hand garbage. You add nothing to debate because you do not wish to debate or learn more about the world. You worship your own ignorance.

  • Nitro
    October 14, 2007 at 1:22 pm

    “Scientists have declared a war on our way of life”

    Define “our” for me please.

  • John S
    October 14, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    Yes, yes! john here has got. Scientists, with their pernicious inventions of antibiotics, motors, and electric lighting hate our way of life, America, and freedom too!

  • Nitro
    October 14, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    john

    “it is a shame a resource given to us by God will forever go unused”

    Like your brain, for example?

  • Chris
    October 14, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    etoian shrdlu,

    Algore lied about the Polar bears. They aren’t dying because icebergs are melting. A British judge ruled that there were nine scientific errors or falsehoods in Gore’s movie, including the bogus story that polar bears are drowning because of global warming. It’s pretty amazing the bull$hit people like you are so willing to buy into. PT Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute.

  • etoian shrdlu
    October 14, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    Chris,

    Simply stating something you want to believe is true without evidence or reasoning does not constitute an argument. Please read this Tim Lambert post here, then get back to us if you have something substantive to say on the matter other “Oh, yeah? Is too!”:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php

  • etoian shrdlu
    October 14, 2007 at 2:38 pm

    Since john and Chris are probably too lazy to read the Tim Lambert piece, here is direct link (cited by Lambert) to a relevent article about polar bears for them:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece

  • DantheMan
    October 14, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    So let me get this straight:

    1. Al Gore makes a movie that is partially factual but includes several inaccuracies. Those inaccuracies, if I recall correctly, take up a significant portion of the movie time and are communicated in a very emotional light.

    In other words, Al Gore did what all filmakers do - sell a movie that is “based on a true story”

    2. As a recent poster proudly said: “Gore cited studies where others made careful observations.”

    OK - it is clear to me now. Give the Oscar to Gore, and teh Nobel Prize to the Scientists making all of those careful observations!!!!

    Why the heck did this man win a Nobel for making a movie???

  • Chris
    October 14, 2007 at 3:21 pm

    Etoian,

    Did you read the article from the UK Guardian about the judge who ruled Gore’s film to be false in nine areas?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=8

    The relevant portion having to do with polar bears states:

    Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned “swimming long distances to find the ice”. The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.

    In other words, four polar bears drowned in a storm and Gore falsely states the melting ice caps are killing polar bears. You’re a Kool Aid drinker, Etoian. You better remember what happened to the last group of people who drank the Kool Aid.

  • etoian shrdlu
    October 14, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    Chris and DanTheMan,

    Please, please, PLEASE, read the article and Tim Lambert piece so that you do waste our time with issues that are fully addressed there. Since you seem to be averse clicking on provided links I guess I will have to paste in the relevent Lambert passage here (go to Lambert to see it properly formatted):

    Burton is badly wrong here. Look at the news story on the drownings (my emphasis):

    “We know short swims up to 15 miles are no problem, and we know that one or two may have swum up to 100 miles. But that is the extent of their ability, and if they are trying to make such a long swim and they encounter rough seas they could get into trouble,” said Steven Amstrup, a research wildlife biologist with the USGS.

    The new study, carried out in part of the Beaufort Sea, shows that between 1986 and 2005 just 4% of the bears spotted off the north coast of Alaska were swimming in open waters. Not a single drowning had been documented in the area.

    However, last September, when the ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of Alaska, 51 bears were spotted, of which 20% were seen in the open sea, swimming as far as 60 miles off shore.

    The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days later after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. “We estimate that of the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds,” said the report.

    There were storms before 2006, but they didn’t drown bears. The bears drowned in the 2006 storm because they had to swim further because of global warming.

  • Chris
    October 14, 2007 at 4:24 pm

    etoian,

    That is a conclusion not supported by the scientific facts. Therefore it was thrown out by a judge in Britian as being false. My point is that Algore exaggerates claims and draws conclusions not supported by scientific facts to create an alarmist view of global warming.

    Not all scientists agree about global warming. Here is an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about a speech given by Dr. William Gray, one of the top meteorologists in the world. The article states the following:

    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.

    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.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

  • etoian shrdlu
    October 14, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    Chris,

    This is really frustrating. You won’t read Tim Lambert so I have to bit-by-bit copy and paste every single point he makes in it just to get you to read it. The specific point the judge was making was this:

    Burton:

    In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: “A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.” The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues, but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description.

    The only problem here is that Gore’s description is accurate. The judge is wrong and you are wrong. If you don’t like it, take it up with the scientists who did the study.

    As for Dr. Grey’s opinion, why should I care? He is just one person who virtually no one who is currently studying in his field agrees with. I can cite lots of individual scientists who did good work in their early years and later became crackpots.

  • Tanuki
    October 14, 2007 at 5:12 pm

    john, do you simply enjoy lashing out at anyone who challenges your worldview? Diesel generators are the backbone of our presence in Iraq, powering every US installation outside of the handful of cities with a 100% reliable power grid. Maintaining effective communication, and hence command and control, requires continuous, reliable electricity. This isn’t a new problem, it dates back to Korea, and was a nightmarish headache in Vietnam. Schwarzkopf talked about it in his post-Desert Storm autobiography as one of the most serious difficulties during the buildup in Saudi Arabia. You’re correct that replacing them won’t cut down on diesel use by tanks. The Abrams tank is powered by a gas turbine, the only such armored vehicle in the world. Logistics will always be a complicated business. The DoD, via DARPA, is trying to simplify it to the extent possible.

    As for wind power being expensive, it is at the moment. As I noted, prices keep going down. Look down at your keyboard. Twenty years ago, personal computers were both tremendously expensive and, comparatively, horribly inefficient. As demand grew, more manufacturers got into the business, prices came down, quality rose, etc. etc. Did you’re head just explode from the thought of a liberal defending free market principles? Coal is our most abundant resource, and I’d love to see coal gasification take off in a big way, but it’s still a finite fuel.

    “Most scientists are atheists” -WTF?!? Where on Earth did this come from? A personal bias against the literate?

    As for the Guardian article, Chris, it also seems largely supportive of the film’s research. The judge called the film broadly accurate. Are you supporting his entire ruling, or just the portion that coincides with your beliefs? Incidentally, I’m not attempting to start a brawl here, plenty of those already, I’m just curious about what looks to me like a flaw in your logic. I found Gore’s film fairly interesting, though patently propaganda, but didn’t think it merited a Nobel Prize.

  • etoian shrdlu
    October 14, 2007 at 5:52 pm

    Tanuki: I found Gore’s film fairly interesting, though patently propaganda, but didn’t think it merited a Nobel Prize.

    Well, propaganda in the broad sense of advocating a position, sure. This is obviously somewhat subjective but I am curious as to what part of the committee’s explanation you quibble with.

    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html

    Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world’s leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

  • Tanuki
    October 14, 2007 at 6:20 pm

    I don’t quibble with Gore having a long, sound record on climate change. I just don’t think his work in this area was worthy of one of the most distinguished honors in the world. Though, in all fairness, since it was announced I’ve been trying to think of a better candidate, without success. Several national leaders who’ve done some impressive things, especially Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in Liberia and the post-Garang leadership in South Sudan, but certainly nothing significant enough to merit the Prize.

  • DantheMan
    October 14, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    For the record:

    I’m not arguing against the presence of a Global Warming trend.

    I’m saying that Al Gore winning a Nobel Peace Prize is an absolute joke.

  • Nitro
    October 14, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

  • DantheMan
    October 14, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    Whats with all the links? This is a forum. Bottom line it for us. I can go to Google if I simply want to find a listing of links.

    I enjoy reading articles and bios as much as the next guy, but not when I have just a couple minutes to do a quick online surf before I move on to other things.

  • P-pen
    October 14, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    Wow, all it takes to get the conservative whine-a-thon going about their spoiled grapes is to see a liberal being recognized for doing good.

  • Eva
    October 14, 2007 at 8:27 pm

    Well, also a liberal who is in every sense the anti-Bush. The better Gore looks, the worse Bush looks.

  • Chris
    October 14, 2007 at 9:21 pm

    Etoian,

    Who the hell is Tim Lambert??? Oh that’s right, he’s a computer scientist. Not a meteorologist. Not a climatologist. Not a physicist. A computer scientist. That hardly qualifies him as an expert in climate change. If that is who Algore relied on for the movie, no wonder there were so many errors.

  • Chris
    October 14, 2007 at 9:22 pm

    Nut-ro,

    I see you posted a link to a Wikipedia posting about Dr. Gray. That doesn’t impress me much considering anyone can post anything about anyone on Wikipedia.

  • Nitro
    October 14, 2007 at 9:33 pm

    Those links are just a reminder for some particular people that the internet is a great tool for debunking information. There really isn’t any use, those who should be reading that information ignore it anyway.

    That’s all.

    It’s a waste of time, no use even acknowledging an ideology that’s dead. I’m just posting the obvious, and it gets old after a while. Trolls will be trolls, and if anything, they are persistant
    ….wrong but persistent.

    I’m too busy doing election stuff, as a lot of people are, and that’s a bit more positive than engaging in the dumb arguments righties want to have. There’s a lot to do, and it’s all much more fun.

    Anyhoo, you’re right, Dantheman.

    A tip of the hat.

  • Chris
    October 14, 2007 at 9:57 pm

    Nut-ro,

    Linking to news articles is something completely different from linking to Wikipedia or Media Matters or countless far left sources you link to. Maybe you should pick up a newspaper once in awhile and you wouldn’t be so uninformed.

  • Paul
    October 15, 2007 at 7:03 am

    Speaking of nitpicking….

    Actually being qualified to speak on this topic, unlike many of its critics, there is a high degree of evidence for global warming. No, it isn’t the public relations created term ” climate change”. It is global warming. There is, in fact, overwhelming evidence. Now, to the naysayers, I want to see one posited model or theory with the same amount of supported evidence equal to or greater than that examined by the vast majority of the scientific community. Until then, shut your bloody mouth.

    Now to the attacks on Gore and the Nobel prize itself. As usual, those with a profitable, personal or ideological stake against this cause are of course those screaming the loudest, one court case from a whacked out judge in england ( see his background in the guardian) or the opinions of an apparently qualified truck driver backed by huge money notwithstanding.

    This is all a diversion. The evidence is overwhelming. The naysayers are not Einsteins ( who wasn’t a rebel anyway) with a new testable theory. They, like Intelligent design proponents, never propose anything testable. When they do, it is always quickly shown to be in error..and untestable. And, somehow, the money track always leads somewhere. I want one opponent here to actually show me supported, tested, confirmed peer reviewed evidence against. Just once. When you find it , please give an open link.

    Until then, bloody be quiet.

  • Eva
    October 15, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    That’s right, Nitro. Be fair. Remember the facts have an anti-Bush bias!

  • Chris
    October 15, 2007 at 1:29 pm

    Eva,

    Where are your facts? Oh that’s right you read the same Media Matters/MoveOn/Huffington Post/Daily Kos crap that Nitro cites to. It’s called reading a newspaper once in awhile. Maybe you should try it.

  • Eva
    October 15, 2007 at 1:36 pm

    You’re right. Because nobody in the mainstream thinks global warming exists.

  • Chris
    October 15, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    Eva,

    Nobody in the mainstream thinks polar bears are drowning because of global warming.

  • Eva
    October 15, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    It’s true, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page is pretty right-wing, but I still think they qualify as mainstream media.

    http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB113452435089621905-vnekw47PQGtDyf3iv5XEN71_o5I_20061214.html

  • DJZ
    October 15, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    These Republicans have been at this with the Nobel Prize for a long time. Note the comment below:

    National Review a few months after Martin Luther King Jr. won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964:

    “For years now, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his associates have been deliberately undermining the foundations of internal order in this country. With their rabble-rousing demagoguery, they have been cracking the “cake of custom” that holds us together. With their doctrine of “civil disobedience,” they have been teaching hundreds of thousands of Negroes — particularly the adolescents and the children — that it is perfectly alright to break the law and defy constituted authority if you are a Negro-with-a-grievance; in protest against injustice. And they have done more than talk. They have on occasion after occasion, in almost every part of the country, called out their mobs on the streets, promoted “school strikes,” sit-ins, lie-ins, in explicit violation of the law and in explicit defiance of the public authority. They have taught anarchy and chaos by word and deed — and, no doubt, with the best of intentions — and they have found apt pupils everywhere, with intentions not of the best. Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.”

    Will Herberg, “‘Civil Rights’ and Violence: Who Are the Guilty Ones?”, The National Review Sept. 7th, 1965

  • bajonimi
    October 15, 2007 at 5:24 pm

    Lordy, lordy. Things haven’t changed much here in the past 24 hours. Remember the original story of Rumpelstiltskin? He was cock-sure the princess could not possibly ferret out the true fact that was his name. But she did. And when she said it out loud, Rumpelstiltskin went ballistic. Sreamed, yelled, carried on, and finally grabbed hold of his ankles and tore himself up the middle. This is a cautionary tale for trolls.

  • Nitro
    October 15, 2007 at 5:46 pm

    Eva,

    The truth has power,

    and so can you.

  • Chris
    October 15, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    Eva,

    The article doesn’t say that polar bears are being killed by global warming. The article repeats the claims made by Greenpeace and others but also gives another point of view. It also states the ludicrous claims that polar bears will be extinct because of global warming.

    It’s a two year old article. Since then, it’s been shown that polar bears have not been killed by global warming.

  • Jeremy
    December 8, 2009 at 9:52 am

    Of course, what a great site and informative posts, I will bookmark this site. Regards

Leave a Reply