Al Gore wins Nobel

Parent Cafe
61

<p>

Hardly the ‘balanced sources’ I was referring to. It’s about as balanced as a Michael Moore film.</p>

<p>

Of course they are. VCs are after one thing - money and with all the hype there’s no doubt plenty of money to be made off of ‘green’ business. I’m not saying that either of those is bad - making money or becoming greener.</p>

62

<p>1sokkermom, Is this the scientist who produced a research paper for the tobacco industry challenging the health effects of second-hand smoke some decade ago? He also was/is? financially tied to the oil co?</p>

63

<p>“Hardly the ‘balanced sources’ I was referring to.”</p>

<p>and I just thought you wanted a list of all the bad things that will happen in the next 50-60 years.</p>

<p>My mistake.</p>

64

<p>Deleted my answer.</p>

65

<p>“1sokkermom, Is this the scientist who produced a research paper for the tobacco industry challenging the health effects of second-hand smoke some decade ago?”</p>

<p>No. Not him. His son. He died from lung cancer.</p>

66

<p>I haven’t read this whole thread but I’ve been to Greenland and I think we’re in trouble. Coastlines flooding (our major cities are mostly on coastlines), the AIDS epidemic, environmental injustice, landmines, healthcare injustice, education that is unequal–these are all issues that impact peace on this planet.</p>

67

<p>Things don’t bode well for our future; that’s for sure, Bethievt.</p>

68

<p>There are many scientists who do not think the “Inconvenient Truth” is so true after all. The link I provided was just one example. </p>

<p>Many scientists agree with the arguments provided in that particular link. I would still believe a scientist over a politician, but that’s just me. ;)</p>

<p>(P.S. I have over 25 years of professional work experience in the environmental field.)</p>

<p>Some British folks are skeptical as well. They were credible enough to get the court’s attention!
<a href=“http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=50e42b47-ca21-47c1-bbb1-caf456348677&k=21371[/url]”>http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=50e42b47-ca21-47c1-bbb1-caf456348677&k=21371&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>According to this, “A judge in Britain’s High Court has ruled that Gore’s apocalyptic movie on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, should come with a warning that it promotes “partisan political views” and is riddled with errors.”</p>

69

<p>“(P.S. I have over 25 years of professional work experience in the environmental field.)”</p>

<p>was it in the oil industry?</p>

<p>The nay sayers are trumpeting a solitary judge’s ruling as if he was the final scientific authority? Let us grow up. Shall we?</p>

<p>FYI, the UN panel on climate change had thousands if not tens on thousand of scientists who and their governments signed off on the final summary.</p>

<p>You could only win the arguments (with me) if you say that number of nay sayer scientist is as large than the scientists who say it is true. A guy here and there on the payroll of some special interest group don’t excite me.</p>

70

<p>Maybe he can get together with Jimmy Carter and write about how global warming can be blamed on the Jewish state.</p>

71

<p>actually it was also Jimmy Carter who was serious about ozone. Remember that thing?</p>

72

<p>

</p>

<p>Wow. This just shows what a well funded propaganda campaign supported by a corporate driven, stick-to-the-talking-points conservative media will accomplish. Why do they bother teaching science at all anymore?!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well from what I’ve read that doesn’t seem to be the way it’s going. <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/science/earth/03clim.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/science/earth/03clim.html&lt;/a&gt;
(Google climate change third world.)</p>

73

<p>The ironic thing about the Nobel committee awarding Gore the Peace Prize is that the Nobel organization is also responsible for awards in science. The irony? Gore is anti-science with his attempt to close down and brow-beat any scientist who dares to question his hypothesis. The issue is far from “closed” as Gore likes to proclaim. Gore is to science what the Catholic church was to Galileo.</p>

74

<p>I haven’t read the British court ruling, but the report posted does not inspire a lot of confidence. Most of the errors are relatively trivial – the polar bears drowning – or result from an obvious mischaracterization of the movie – it does NOT say that Katrina was caused by global warming, only that the number and intensity of hurricanes appears to have increased, along with ocean temperatures in the Gulf, and that might be an effect of global warming, and that Katrina is an example of such an intense storm.</p>

<p>As for ice loss in Antarctica and Greenland – I thought that was pretty obvious, given the collapse of the ice shelf in Antarctica, the acknowledged melt in Greenland, not to mention the extraordinary melt in the Arctic Ocean this summer. The seven-meter sea level rise was presented as a worst case, not something about to happen imminently.</p>

<p>Perhaps the most interesting ruling was that the potential Gulf Stream shutdown is a scientific impossibility. I have read a lot about that, and I certainly have the impression that many scientists do not believe it is a scientific impossibility, to say the least.</p>

75

<p>“Gore is anti-science with his attempt to close down and brow-beat any scientist who dares to question his hypothesis.”</p>

<p>examples please.</p>

76

<p>OK. I am really ignorant. There are really functioning people who believe that global warming is not a fact? I mean, we can debate why I suppose but hell it’s happening.</p>

<p>I am an incurable optimist and I believe science and technology will triumph but reading this thread I feel like those who knew the Holocaust was happening listening to people say it was all a lie…</p>

77

<p>"Gore is anti-science with his attempt to close down and brow-beat any scientist who dares to question his hypothesis. "</p>

<p>Unlike, say, our Exxon owned government.</p>

78

<p>For those who believe that the Gore global warming alarmism is based on science, I suggest you read this article (as well as others in the series) to see how scientists who are experts in the field but who have a contrarian view are being shut out of the scientific community. True science does not work like this.<br>
<a href=“http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0[/url]”>http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

79

<p>Here is an example of how another expert has been shut out:

<a href=“http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0[/url]”>http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

80

<p>1sokkermom: Fred Singer is skeptical about the link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer, between CFCs and ozone depletion (despite the fact that it only takes a high school organic chemistry knowledge to detail the mechanism through which CFCs destroy ozone), and the link between UV-B radiation and melanoma. He also has serious financial ties to both the oil and tobacco industries. Do you really take him seriously?</p>