Oct 12, 2007 11:40 am I actually was going to stay away from that altogether...but I figured somebody would post it.
It's not like the nobel prize really "means" much any more so it's hardly something worth ranting about...
Al Gore Shares Nobel Peace Prize
Posted on Oct 12, 2007 11:10 am
Herb Utsmelz
Ne'er ate 'er
Member Since: Apr 05, 2006
In light of the gun thread, I'm posting this to give the right-wingers something to complain about.
Bonus: the link is to the Commie News Network.
www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS...gore/index.html
I think they should take back the prize, due to the fact that this man is responsible for creating the Internet.
[ Back to Top ]
Oct 12, 2007 11:40 am I actually was going to stay away from that altogether...but I figured somebody would post it.
It's not like the nobel prize really "means" much any more so it's hardly something worth ranting about...
Oct 12, 2007 11:58 am ... you have GOT to be kidding me... he got a Nobel Peace Prize for championing something that anybody with half a brain can say hasn't really been "proven"... nor is "Global Warming" even defined explicitly. e.g. if the moving global average temperature goes up 0.00001 degree C, that's GLOBAL WARMING.
I agree we need to reduce emissions and such to minimize environmental impact, but ... wow. A freaking Nobel Peace Prize for getting people to reduce emissions based on an extremely shaky "climate impact theory"...
I think it'll be funny when everything drops 5 degrees C in another 100-1000 years and they're like "oops".
Oct 12, 2007 11:59 am haha, are conservatives right wingers or left wingers? I always get it messed up...
Oct 12, 2007 12:02 pm conservatives are right...figuratively, politically and literally... :-D
The Nobel Peace prize is nothing but a stupid political warm fuzzy anyway, not worth getting all worked up about.
Oct 12, 2007 12:02 pm I think that prize is made of a precious resource.
Oct 12, 2007 12:04 pm Probably made of organically grown hemp manufactured naturally with free-range chickens operating the machinery.
... that was a horrible joke... but i'll post it anyways...
Oct 12, 2007 12:56 pm Remember, the fact that science has never proved his point didn't stop John Edwards from getting rich and putting loads of hardworking health care professionals out of business, so it surely shouldn't stop Al Gore from getting an award.
It's never about proof, it's about shouting the loudest.
Oct 12, 2007 01:35 pm wow, to say global warming is not a fact is ignorance. I will accept people arguing whether the current global warming is brought about by man's impact, but you cannot argue that global warming is not occuring.
Now, the argument about how much impact man has on global warming is kinda up for debate, but I think almost all the world's "respected" scientists place blame on man made causes for the speed and severity of the warming. Sure there are some that disagree, but they are very few.
Anyways, I don't see how campaigning for global warming issues = peace though...
Oct 12, 2007 01:44 pm Actually, I am with you up until you thru in "respected scientists", you totally lost me there as respect is subjective...many well respected scientists in the field fall all over the spectrum of their feelings toward existence, impact and blame...it is just a matter of who agrees with you ("you" as in anyone, not you specifically) that is considered "respected".
If it was mans fault is should have sped up much more in the first part of the century before many of the alternate fuels and any sort of efficiency.
Wait, I am NOT getting into this again!
Oct 12, 2007 02:13 pm Alfred Nobel invented Dynamite.
Very peaceful...
Oct 12, 2007 02:26 pm yeah, evidently Nobel felt bad about creating something so destructive so he decided to make an award for something related to peace?
See, here's the problem. You can say "global warming is happening"... but is the average temperature today higher than it was 1500 years ago? How about 3000 years ago?
Science says: we have no idea (but we can guess!!). That's the problem. It's not ignorance, it's facts, and we don't have them, thus to claim that global warming is happening is making a claim that simply cannot be undeniably proved. Maybe we can give a concrete answer to that question in 500 years, maybe 1000?
To say that it's warmed up in the last 50 or 100 years only supports the cyclic nature of the earth, which CAN be supported scientifically, but it has no implications for the greater picture that "global warming" encompasses.
Saying that we need to reduce our emissions is fine, I agree. Saying that the human race is directly responsible for causing global warming because of emissions is unfounded, scientifically or otherwise.
Oct 12, 2007 02:30 pm well, i was defining respected as "respected by their peers".
Not trying to draw you personally into anything db, just wanted to share my take on things, cuz things can get someone one sided 'round here at times and someones gotta stand up for the side of reason.
Oct 12, 2007 02:37 pm Nice one Coolo. I love how you can always be counted on for some level headed argument.
Oct 12, 2007 02:38 pm ksmithjr -
the problem with science is that very few things can EVER be proven completely. That is why there are only a handful of scientific laws. However, the most accepted theories (most accepted by trained/practicing/researching scientists) are that man made causes are indeed causing a global increase in temperatures.
Off the top of my head I don't know the timeframe we're looking at in terms of global warming relative to what time in the past. But I'm pretty sure I have read that the rate of change for temperatures in the last 100 to 150 years or so is pretty much unprecedented. If you need me to go search out facts and figures for you, give me the weekend and I will. I'm also pretty sure that when people generally speak of global warming, they're talking in terms of over 1000 years, with the rate of change in the most recent century being way above what is statistically normal.
Oct 12, 2007 02:49 pm Quote:
well, i was defining respected as "respected by their peers".
and peers are never bias...or subject to respect those that they agree with...
Again, never disagreeing with warming, disagreeing with the assumption it's our fault and that we can actually do anything about it other than stomp our feet and blame ourselves...
If anything gets one sided around here I submit that it is due to that side being right...as there are simply too many people here for any one person to rule the roost.
Oct 12, 2007 03:03 pm I'll take a turn on next Tuesday, then someone else can take over =).
Oct 12, 2007 03:24 pm lol, pjk.
coolo, i'm sure we both can support our cases well, mine being that things are cyclic and will likely just go back down eventually. yours being that human causes are making the earth irreversibly warmer. If you really feel motivated to look up stuff, I'll be happy to take a look at it. I wouldn't be able to do a worthy search this weekend as a retort though, as I'm still trying to finish my thesis and only have enough time to voice differences of opinion. =P
I'm not saying that we don't have the potential of affecting the global temperatures, i'm just saying that it's my opinion that balance will be established by the ecosystem if we continue on our current paths and things will go the other way again with temperature, eventually.
If we were burning sulfur-rich fuel in every coal fired powerplant without scrubbers, did away with every zero-emissions power generation (dams, etc) running leaded fuel in every car, and had weekly "world tire burning celebrations"... well then I might have a different view and say we're going to destroy ourselves.
Oct 12, 2007 03:47 pm you know one thing that really needs to happen, is this:
these people that say there are many scientists disagree with the idea that humans are behind global warming? who are they? one time, i saw a list, a big long list, and there were, on that list, schoolteachers, dentists, anyone with a degree.
it's all about credentials, and i suspect that some bending of the truth is going on here. when you look at who believes what, you must look at only one class of scientist: climatologists.
if you disagree with that on that grounds that they're likely to be biased ahead of time, that's cool. there are other specialists which will have important things to say, as well. but that list--with the dentists on it--was ridiculous.
peeps should always be aware that at root, this is a meme war, and many of the tactics on both sides have become incredibly dishonest. and the fact of the matter is that we civilians have no tools to evaluate the claims, no matter how much we would like to flatter ourselves. to get to the truth, some movement toward honesty needs to happen. and it's not going to happen.
Oct 12, 2007 04:38 pm 4 out of 5 dentists agree: global warming is real. LOL.
Oct 12, 2007 04:49 pm I'm that fifth bastard in all those cases...disagreeing just to be a jerk.
Oct 12, 2007 04:55 pm 1 out of 5 dentists agree: dB is a jerk.
:D
Oct 12, 2007 05:04 pm Who's Al Gore? j/k, I know he is from the US...not sure what he does though. On another note, how can someone like Al Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize when he is a politician involved with a war?
Oct 12, 2007 05:09 pm He was a half-assed vice president whose wife was really pushing the whole censorship thing for music.
Gore has a stick so far up his *** I am surprised he doesn't choke on it...but then, when Jerry Garcia died he was all of a sudden a life-long deadhead.
I hate Al Gore...always have...and he gets credit for a movie that he basically narrated and funded and nothing more. I even liked Clinton, but still always thought Gore was the snotty rich parents frat boy type of guy...
Oct 12, 2007 05:48 pm Yeah, for a brief time I thought Tipper Gore could be doable. Then she opened her mouth.
Wilt city.
Oct 12, 2007 07:39 pm I'll say it one more time.
Does anyone remember the Ice Age?
I thought not.
This planet has seen several drastic changes in climate, both up and down. The fact is simply this. Today we have a frenzied media who want to sensationalize every thing they can. And if it means they need to pay some group to research it their way, then that is what they do. This is no different from a million frickin years ago. The planet has changed many times, and will continue to change long past our lifetime. Hopefully some one will lock up all the idiot media so we can go back to just living life normally again without the fear that if I fart, the sky might fall.
Sorry if I upset anyone, but wake up and look back before you look ahead.
Oct 12, 2007 08:52 pm i like gore.
noize, i am sorry to hear you feel that way. the debate is happening for a reason: lots of conflicting info. no answer is really known.
Oct 12, 2007 09:48 pm Its not really how I feel, it is simply the way it was, is and will be. Even science can't explain it, meaning the climatologist's. So how are all these idiot's jumping on some bandwagon and blaming this or that without even a tiny bit of concrete proof from science? I just think it is something to be researched, but some of these folks are causing extreme panic and blaming it on things that they really have no evidence of.
Its simply as I stated. The climate has been changing since long before we were here, but the difference is there were not any media to dig up something to sensationalize and cause utter and extreme panic among normal people. We can debate it all we want, but without proof then we are doing exactly what the hyped up media want. Getting all worked up, some even going off the deep end as it were. I'm all for being green and such. I freakin recycle everything that can be recycled. I conserve whatever and whenever I can. But I'm not about to start blaming this or that for the fact that my summer was too hot, or my winter was too cold.
Oct 12, 2007 11:00 pm eh, i dunno. i view the media as being the source of panic. they construct worries all the time. scientists are by and large just doing their job. media comes knocking on their door, and surprise! they say what they believe when they're asked.
as for 'concrete proof,' the possibility that we're behind GW requires that you do not wait around for proof! it's a different kind of political question because of the stakes. you must let the scientific process run while making smart decisions in the meantime in absence of complete proof. i really don't think people understand this. proof, if we are causing global warming (and i'm not saying we are), is a luxury we can't afford, and i can think of very few scientific questions that are quite like that. if indeed we are causing GW, we might wait around for 50 years before there's absolutely irrefutable proof, and all that time we would have been making the problem worse, possibly to the point where we have really screwed things up badly.
so i sort of have a real problem with people who would risk our personal future health and comfort and resources because it doesn't suit their political aims. that's the height of selfishness. it's actually childish, i think. (i am saying this generally, not to anyone specifically, and i'm not accusing anyone here). i have always motioned for a balanced approach, because, being half-republican myself, i'm not interested in seeing ourselves and our economy greatly suffer if it doesn't have to. but the movement to paint human-caused global warming as a deliberate ruse is so intellectually dishonest, it should make any thinking person sad for americans. THAT is most certainly a politically-inspired tactic, and it's going full-bore right now. there is no evidence to suggest that it is deliberate, and in fact it can't be.
back to proof: we can't have it now. so what do you do? bet everything and do what you want? become overly cautious and cripple your economy? or--maybe--just admit that 'hey yeah, if it's happening we should do at least something about it, so let's try to find a happy medium while we keep looking at evidence.' there is an element of elementary survival logic in this GW question which, i notice, many people on the right simply ignore. the people who try to say 'nothing is happening at all, we're not doing it' are being very bold and sily. they do not have the evidence to back that up, but, unlike the other side, the consequences of their being wrong about that conclusion are more serious.
you're not supposed to blame global warming on local changes in your weather, noize. it can't be shown to really work that way 100 percent of the time.
Oct 13, 2007 12:17 am Quote:
being half-republican myself
...tick...tick...tick...well, we was gonna think about what to do...tick...tick...but...tick...we's got so busy arguin' an' stuff that we...tick...tick...tick...
Oct 13, 2007 03:02 am i am going to buy a cake. that's my solution. it's one a.m. and i decree: caketime.
Oct 13, 2007 01:31 pm that's one of our family's creedos:
She needs cake. Cake makes everything better.
hmm, now i want some too =/
Oct 13, 2007 01:47 pm forty, that is my point. The media take a little and make a lot out of it. And indeed, I am all for preventing what could happen if indeed it is proven that is the cause. Which I am sure there are certain thing the human race has done, like pollution of all kinds that are cause to take action. Like I said, I am a huge recycle nut. I don't waste **** when it comes to using everything to its utmost.
My biggest beef is of course the media we mentioned. Blowing things out of proportion before they have all the facts.
But that is the way it seems to be for now. So I just do what I think is right and go with it.
Oct 13, 2007 02:08 pm Quote:
My biggest beef is of course the media we mentioned. Blowing things out of proportion before they have all the facts.
After what happened at VT, and how things were reported, blown out of proportion, and the concurrent backlashes from various organizations/political figures, and me being there...
I have absolutely no respect for "the truth" of the media. News stations, reporters, movies, what have you, large or small, will blow up even the smallest story to get people's heart rates up.
I had a phone interview with a local po-dunk tv station back home that was RECORDED.
I said "i made a decision that may have kept me out of harm's way"... and that "one of our worship leaders lost a bunch of friends in the killings" in the interview.
This was reported that evening as "Kenny made a decision, that in his words, 'saved his life'," and "the worship leader of his christian campus ministry was killed".
I sent them an email after this was reported correcting them. The 10 o'clock news reported the same thing...
Oct 13, 2007 03:34 pm Oh, man, a big political and social issue around here these days is mixed martial art fighting...the boxing commission wanted to take it over and the media frenzy over "ultimate fighting" as they call it in the media. One hack reporter filmed an event I go to, and have many friends that fight in, and they did a hatchet job making the fights seem only marginally more humane than Michael Vicks dog fighting...it was absolutely insane how they twisted the story to spin it in the worst image they could to get the boxing commission to control it.
It worked, the Boxing Commission is now destroying MMA in Minnesota because they know nothing about it (boxing and MMA are VERY different) and yet are regulating it.
Oct 13, 2007 04:57 pm that's lame, man. they want a story so they make one up. suburban housewives and grandmas then go porchsitting and say things like 'hey did you hear about this new animalistic sport'
hey remember when dan quayle and barbara bush were saying that the simpsons was morally degenerate was going to ruin our kids or something?
there's a market for fear.
Oct 13, 2007 05:26 pm Back right after 9/11 and 'Camp Xray' was just opened and the media was trying to figure out why we were treating 'POWs' so badly I explained to one of the networks (was still a legal NCO at the time) that just because someone was captured in combat doesn't make them a POW... these guys are 'illegal combatants'...much like spies... they have no rights under international law unless we are willing to acknowledge Al-qaeda as a legitimate national government... that evening at one of the popular Rumsfield press conferences as a last question a reporter from that network asked the Sec. of Defense if we viewed al-qaeda as a national government... obviously he said 'no'...and even shook his head like the reporter was an idiot for asking the question... which he was...
Another one of my favorites was just after the invasion of Iraq a soldier was suing the government over the stoploss program calling it conscription and that 'his enlistment contract expired years ago'... well... turned out he didn't HAVE an enlistment contract...because he was an officer...and their contracts don't expire...you have to resign...
My favorites is the mess AP got into with Mr. Green Helmet and 'Unluckiest Woman in the World'
Oct 13, 2007 06:53 pm Yes but who will ...
Oct 13, 2007 06:57 pm See my screen name for further information.
Oct 13, 2007 07:24 pm Well, starting in two weeks I am working for a large media company...I am really going to be curious to get a look at such a place from the inside.
Oct 13, 2007 07:27 pm Db i do hope you're not referring to my picture.
Oct 13, 2007 07:30 pm Technically speaking, that's a large medium for sure.
Oct 13, 2007 07:37 pm No, there is one thing I surely don't need a look at from the inside...
::shudder::
Oct 13, 2007 08:51 pm ::Save the Whale!:: HA! Great photo...I think I used to date her in High School. Her name is "Orca"
Looks like they Freed Willy!
Oct 13, 2007 09:28 pm Looks more like theyFEED Willy.
Definitely corn fed, thats for sure.
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.