Alfred Nobel is turning in his grave.....

[Guest Len]

Bush for the Nobel? Actually, he has been nominated in the past, but never made the cuts. I doubt even Orwell could come up with a rationale for awarding the PEACE prize to President Bush. While we're at it, we can give gold medals to the people who come in last at the Olympics.

As for climate change leading to conditions that could foster war, what you call "nonsense," national security types call realistic, and what is actually happening right now in parts of Africa. Water is a valuable commodity and one that could easily cause people to go to war over. Its happened in our own history (western water wars between ranchers, etc), its happening in Africa, and it can happen elsewhere where people have big guns and standing armies. Go here for one of many interesting analysis.

This is nonsense. Lots of things can lead to war but global warming isnt one of them, nor is it especially imminent, assuming it is actually happening, it is caused by human beings, it is deleterious, it can be changed, and the change will be cost effective.

Far more threatening is global Muslim radicalization, that has killed thousands of people already. The only reason we have not seen many terrorist incidents is that the US, under Pres Bush, has pursued a vigorous policy of degrading their capabilities.

So why isn't Pres Bush up for the Nobel Peace Prize? Oh yeah, that wouldnt be PC.

[The Rabbi]

Since the nominations are secret I dont know how you know he was nominated in the past. Unless you're on the Nobel committee.

As for Bush, si pacem vis, para bellum. The war in Iraq and the WOT in general has saved more lives all over the world than Gore and his self-righteous campaign.

The prize assumes:

a) Climate change is man-made, unproven.

Climate change is bad, unproven.

c) Climate change can be reversed by man's actions, unproven.

d) Climate change will lead inexorably to conflict, hypothesis.

e) Gore's movie will somehow help any of this. Absurd.

So this year's honoree has done exactly nothing to further the cause of world peace. There is a dubious unproven connection between his sensationalist scientifically unsound movie and some amorphous conflict "in Africa" or wherever that is to take place at some unspecified time period in the future. Sounds like a slam-dunk to me.

Meanwhile there are actual people who have saved actual lives, who have actually put themselves at risk to further human freedom. But since they arent perceived to be hostile (enough) to the US administration no prize for them.

[Guest canynracer]

potatoE....thats all I gotta say bout that...moving on...

[Smith]

You also forgot the riots in Mexico and South America due to the corn shortage and high prices (due to speculation of ethanol).

Maybe Gore got it because if GW is happening then more farming can take place producing more food for the famine ravaged Africa you mentioned as well as lower food prices in general that will result..... No that can't be good, because any warming is bad!

Kinda like how bad it was for Europe when the climate was more temperate than it is now (due to the mini "ice age"). European agriculture flourished until it became colder, then people migrated to cities in look for work and plagues and famine broke out. But that would be good, because colder is better!

[Marswolf]

As for climate change leading to conditions that could foster war, what you call "nonsense," national security types call realistic, and what is actually happening right now in parts of Africa.

I think it's about to happen between Georgia and Florida too. The Corps of Engineers is required by federal law to release a bunch of water daily from Lake Lanier for environmental reasons in Florida. Some mussels in Florida need the water. Of course Lanier is also a major source of drinking water for Atlanta.

They are going for the courts for now, but we may have to arm the Corps pretty soon.

[Guest Phantom6]

Imagine a "Professor" Harold Hill (of The Music Man) type character dancing through River City (Chattanooga?) intoning the following:

Oh, there's trouble. It's not just a problem happening in foreign lands.

No, it's happening right here at our very own hands.

In our own back yard, or at least our neighbor's back yard.

I wish the solution were simple but it's just so hard.

No water from Lake Lanier for Atlanta means no Snow Mountain there just out of town which of course leads to economic instability due to lack of jobs compounded by thirsty crops and town folk leading to mass migration to (...ulp) Knoxville and Nashville and other nearby urban centers in something akin to a convoluted Katrina catostrophy (too little water rather than too much). Oh no. Nashville could be another Houston. The Tri-Cities another MetroPlex (move over Marswolf, J. R. Ewing and his house boy Juan are comin' in). Quick, close the TN-GA border with law enforcement all along I-75 just like in James Garner's 1984 smash hit(?) "Tank", send 'em a few bucks to set up refugee camps in Fort Oglethorp and shoot anyone trying to escape.

Yup, there's trouble. Trouble in River City.

[Guest Len]

Well, I know because I've read it in various places at various times. There is nothing that says a nominator has to maintain secrecy. Most every US President has been so nominated.

As for your assumptions:

a) Pretty well proven, but not required any way. If we decide climate change is bad and want to deal with it, who cares if the original change was man-made or not?

Extremely well proven.

c) Unproven, perhaps. Theoretically possible, yes. But its also unproven I will brush my teeth tomorrow. Can't "prove" the future. We can certainly try.

d) Not hypothesis at all. For the third time, its happening now in Africa, and has happened in the past. Here's a link describing what's going on in the Sahel region of Africa: www.tompaine.com/articles/climate_change_and_war.php

e) The movie was not the only reason he won. He's been dealing with climate issues for over 30 years, and has been a major advocate of the issue for over a decade. However, the movie is informational, information is a powerful tool. People need to know in order that they may act. As an informational tool, it has value. Gore's body of work, including the film, is what the committee looked at. And remember, Gore shared the prize with the climate scientists. The prize was not for making the film, but for doing the research and then spreading the word and developing awareness. In other words, here's the work, now someone figure out a good way to spread the word.

Since we are dealing with strange arguments now (such as your supposed ability to prove future events), I'd like to hear the "proof" that President Bush's policies have saved even one life or have made the world a more peaceful place in general. I might suggest that there is mountains of proof to the contrary. We have done a great job of making an unstable region even more unstable. If there is an award for that, I think President Bush deserves it.

The argument that the prize committee is just a bunch of knee-jerk American policy haters is also missing proof. I find it funny that people actually think that the Nobel Committee bases their decisions on an analysis of US policy. We are probably being a little too ego-centric if we think arcane US policy decisions have much impact on that group of people!

Paul Krugman said it best in his 10/15 column "Gore Derangement Syndrome." Here's an excerpt from the blogosphere that sums it up pretty well: The whole “derangement syndrome” phenomenon stems from an increasingly common problem — when contempt for a leader strays from simple political opposition to irrational, reflexive antagonism. If so-and-so says “day,” I’ll say “night,” even if the sun is shining. It’s more important to fight the perceived opponent than to make sense. And for far too long, that’s exactly how the right has approached Gore and the science on global warming. The evidence must be wrong, because Gore believes it. The Nobel Peace Prize must be worthless, because Gore won it.

These aren’t arguments. They’re sad and nonsensical temper-tantrums.

Unfortunately for the right, Gore has withstood every attack, and has come out of it more respected and popular than ever. Ah well, there is some joy to be found in such sweet irony.

Since the nominations are secret I dont know how you know he was nominated in the past. Unless you're on the Nobel committee.

As for Bush, si pacem vis, para bellum. The war in Iraq and the WOT in general has saved more lives all over the world than Gore and his self-righteous campaign.

The prize assumes:

a) Climate change is man-made, unproven.

Climate change is bad, unproven.

c) Climate change can be reversed by man's actions, unproven.

d) Climate change will lead inexorably to conflict, hypothesis.

e) Gore's movie will somehow help any of this. Absurd.

So this year's honoree has done exactly nothing to further the cause of world peace. There is a dubious unproven connection between his sensationalist scientifically unsound movie and some amorphous conflict "in Africa" or wherever that is to take place at some unspecified time period in the future. Sounds like a slam-dunk to me.

Meanwhile there are actual people who have saved actual lives, who have actually put themselves at risk to further human freedom. But since they arent perceived to be hostile (enough) to the US administration no prize for them.

[The Rabbi]

So African conflicts are caused by global warming? If that is the case then we have had global warming for probably over 1000 years.

Dismissing an argument by saying we can't prove anything is insufficient. The fact is that since anthrogenic global warming is still the subject of much controversy it stands to reason that man's ability to reverse it is even more so.

But again, why would the committee award the prize to someone whose contribution is so tenuous when there are plenty of people who have made demonstrable contributions to peace?

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Well, I know because I've read it in various places at various times. There is nothing that says a nominator has to maintain secrecy. Most every US President has been so nominated.

As for your assumptions:

a) Pretty well proven, but not required any way. If we decide climate change is bad and want to deal with it, who cares if the original change was man-made or not?

Extremely well proven.

c) Unproven, perhaps. Theoretically possible, yes. But its also unproven I will brush my teeth tomorrow. Can't "prove" the future. We can certainly try.

d) Not hypothesis at all. For the third time, its happening now in Africa, and has happened in the past. Here's a link describing what's going on in the Sahel region of Africa: www.tompaine.com/articles/climate_change_and_war.php

e) The movie was not the only reason he won. He's been dealing with climate issues for over 30 years, and has been a major advocate of the issue for over a decade. However, the movie is informational, information is a powerful tool. People need to know in order that they may act. As an informational tool, it has value. Gore's body of work, including the film, is what the committee looked at. And remember, Gore shared the prize with the climate scientists. The prize was not for making the film, but for doing the research and then spreading the word and developing awareness. In other words, here's the work, now someone figure out a good way to spread the word.

Would you mind providing me with some actual proof and not just correlations? And it does matter if we're spending money on it.

The Brady campaign has "proved" gun laws work. Because they run on the ignorant correlation gun = violence/death. They continue to progress their cause despite contradicting the evidence on law abiding armament. I have yet to see any stats on the brady website other than counts of gun deaths. It's confirmation bias.

The same with global warming. All I see from Al and his camp are numbers that correlate to "prove" it exists as man made from CO2. Yet Al refuses debates and I have yet to see any of the other hypotheses disproved or the accepted global warming to be concretely defined.

I could break this down to formal logic, but I'm not going to bore you to death. Let just say I can name at least 4 formal fallacies if I were to do a logical proof on the global warming argument.

On average CO2 content of the atmosphere is .0383% (383 ppm)

Thats including the avg 2 liters an hour multiplied by the world's 7 billion humans pump out and all of the CO2 from animals, volcanoes, the oceans, and other natural sources.

So last I checked, humans produce about .01% of that by burning of fossil fuels. So our fossil fuels affect about .000383% of the atmosphere (when looking at CO2 anyway).

So now, prove to me that this fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the atmosphere is why the seas will swell and consume us all while causing more hurricanes which are more potent.(which has actually been disproved, more hurricanes in cooler temps)

More proof of fallacy(from wikipedia):

Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale. The unsmoothed, annual value for 2004 is also plotted for reference.

"OK, so whats your point?"

My point is this. Global warming is a hypothesis that needs to be further examined before claims of proof are made.There has been no public debate. No exploration. No valid arguments (bare assertion fallacy). The attitude is "It exists, now prove it".

Its kind of like the thinking of Nazi Germany. "Jews are the problem, now research and fix it." There is tons of Nazi "research" on the specifics of what makes a person Jewish and how that persons "traits" will impact society.

Could there be global warming? Sure. Could it be man influenced? Sure. Has this been proven independently and through true scientific method and peer reviewed by independent bodies? No.

But why go to all this trouble? My tax dollars are paying to fund this farce of "threat". I want to know that there was some due diligence on something this "important".

In response to the other comment:

The argument that the prize committee is just a bunch of knee-jerk American policy haters is also missing proof. I find it funny that people actually think that the Nobel Committee bases their decisions on an analysis of US policy. We are probably being a little too ego-centric if we think arcane US policy decisions have much impact on that group of people!

Paul Krugman said it best in his 10/15 column "Gore Derangement Syndrome." Here's an excerpt from the blogosphere that sums it up pretty well: The whole “derangement syndrome” phenomenon stems from an increasingly common problem — when contempt for a leader strays from simple political opposition to irrational, reflexive antagonism. If so-and-so says “day,” I’ll say “night,” even if the sun is shining. It’s more important to fight the perceived opponent than to make sense. And for far too long, that’s exactly how the right has approached Gore and the science on global warming. The evidence must be wrong, because Gore believes it. The Nobel Peace Prize must be worthless, because Gore won it.

These aren’t arguments. They’re sad and nonsensical temper-tantrums.

Unfortunately for the right, Gore has withstood every attack, and has come out of it more respected and popular than ever. Ah well, there is some joy to be found in such sweet irony.

Here are the requirement laid out by Alfred Nobel himself for the peace prize in his own words:

"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing

armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

BREAKDOWN

1.Done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations

Really? He united allies against global warming (an inanimate adversary)? That must have been tough.

2.For the abolition or reduction of standing

armies.

The Nobel commitee obviously didn't read this one. Notice it didn't say "potential" standing armies.

3.For the holding and promotion of peace congresses

I'm sure Al has had "peace" congresses, but I think idea was to bring together more than just your target audience.

Initiating soapbox removal protocol.........

[The Rabbi]

And anyone wth proof of man-made global warming could find himself $125,000 richer. Just go to www.junkscience.com and follow the links.

[molonlabetn]

I just farted... I'm pretty sure that did some damage to the atmosphere.

But seriously. These 'scientists' who study global-warming are looking at a very narrow slice of time in which they have had accurate temperature measurements. It's like taking someone's temperature only during the onset of a fever and concluding that progressive 'body-warming' is occurring, when in reality, any dynamic system like a human or a planet has rhythms, anomalies and is affected by certain activities... which do not change the fact that the average temp of a living human is 98.6*F.

Temperature variations are normal... just like the ice-age was at the opposite end of the temperature spectrum on the earth's time-line.

So, I buy that the earth has warmed up a degree over the last 100 years... but there is no way to scientifically predict whether that trend with continue, level off, or reverse. Remember, these are the same folks who rarely guess correctly what the weather will be tomorrow... I honestly don't care though, the world has far greater problems to worry about in my lifetime.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

I honestly don't care though, the world has far greater problems to worry about in my lifetime.

Any chance Chernobyl comes to mind? If that thing hits the water table, THAT will be global warming.

[Guest Len]

Temperature change over the last 100 years is probably less than 1% of the evidence to support climate change. There is a whole lot more out there than that, much of it going much farther back in time. Look at ice core samples, for example. Geologists have many ways to look into the past.

I just farted... I'm pretty sure that did some damage to the atmosphere.

But seriously. These 'scientists' who study global-warming are looking at a very narrow slice of time in which they have had accurate temperature measurements. It's like taking someone's temperature only during the onset of a fever and concluding that progressive 'body-warming' is occurring, when in reality, any dynamic system like a human or a planet has rhythms, anomalies and is affected by certain activities... which do not change the fact that the average temp of a living human is 98.6*F.

Temperature variations are normal... just like the ice-age was at the opposite end of the temperature spectrum on the earth's time-line.

So, I buy that the earth has warmed up a degree over the last 100 years... but there is no way to scientifically predict whether that trend with continue, level off, or reverse. Remember, these are the same folks who rarely guess correctly what the weather will be tomorrow... I honestly don't care though, the world has far greater problems to worry about in my lifetime.

[The Rabbi]

Good. So they can prove that temperatures vary over centuries. That is a far cry from anthropogenic global warming or proving that it is even harmful. Sounds like a natural progression to me.

Certainly nothing to award a Nobel Prize over. Except for Gore's being perceived as an enemy of an unpopular administration.

[Marswolf]

Temperature change over the last 100 years is probably less than 1% of the evidence to support climate change.

This is the thing. It's not just CO2 and temperature correlations. And it's not fudged data (on both sides of the issue) either. There are a lot of things going into this study that seldom get talked about outside of the scientific community.

In the FWIW column, John Stossel did a segment on 20/20 this past week basically parroting the naysayer party line.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3751219&page=1

Perhaps the saddest thing in the piece was showing kids who think the oceans are going to rise and flood them sometime soon.

[towerclimber37]

read the above post...

[towerclimber37]

Snipped for brevity:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Len

As for your assumptions:

e) The movie was not the only reason he won. He's been dealing with climate issues for over 30 years, and has been a major advocate of the issue for over a decade. However, the movie is informational, information is a powerful tool. People need to know in order that they may act. As an informational tool, it has value. Gore's body of work, including the film, is what the committee looked at. And remember, Gore shared the prize with the climate scientists. The prize was not for making the film, but for doing the research and then spreading the word and developing awareness. In other words, here's the work, now someone figure out a good way to spread the word.

Len, this is the same film that won him a lawsuit in England because there were so many errors that it couldn't be deemed "informational".

He's not being persecuted because of the vicinity of his political beliefs..he's being persecuted because he's using a political venue to push a theory that doesn't bear verifiable facts, based on flawed or outright incorrect sources and fudged (bull****) mathematics.

remember..this is the guy that grew a mustache because his political advisor said it would make him "look more rugged".

and yet AGAIN we have a crackpot from the left stating that the "vast Right Wing Conspiracy" has their foot on his neck...and he uses THAT to push a purely political sic. financial agenda.

I suspect that BS artist because he doesn't believe what he's selling..if he did, he wouldn't use more energy than 8 family households in 1 of the various homes that he owns.

He owns a tin mine with more environmental violations than half the coal mines in Kentucky..

If other folks want to go swimming with a hypocritical fruit loop, fine. I'll even give them the milk, but I won't.

I don't care if the entire planet says that fly speck on top of a horse pie is the frosting on a chocolate cake, I'm NOT going to believe it. This is another attempt by a political HACK to sell excrement to a shoeshine boy..

Enjoy the cake! I hear tell that frosting is MIGHTY tasty!