Al Gore wins Nobel

[fundingfather]

<p>Another case of the IPCC ignoring scientists expert in their fileds so that they can create their own IPCC-version of science.</p>

<p>

Because of his history of excellence in researching diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and other insects, the U.S. State Department in 2001, upon the recommendation of its own health authorities, nominated Prof. Reiter to be a lead author of the IPCC’s next health chapter. Global warming was increasing the habitats for mosquitoes, many feared, putting hundreds of millions of people in the tropics at risk of contracting malaria and dengue, and raising the spectre that these diseases would spread around the world. Prof. Reiter, in the view of U.S. health experts, was particularly well placed to address this research.</p>

<p>The IPCC selected two other candidates, more suitable in filling the role required of them. At the time of their selection, neither was distinguished by having published peer-reviewed articles dealing with mosquito-born disease. Both were distinguished by their conviction about the dangers to human health of climate change.</p>

<p>**Prof. Reiter was not entirely surprised that the IPCC passed him over – he has been a critic of the science it has disseminated. And neither was he surprised at the IPCC’s failure to select scientists specializing in mosquito-borne diseases, despite the outsized role of malaria and dengue in previous IPCC reports. The IPCC faced an impossible task in finding such an expert.</p>

<p>“I know of no major scientist with any long record in this field who agrees with the pronouncements of the alarmists at the IPCC,” **states Prof. Reiter, whose history in his research field spans three decades and five continents, and who is well familiar with the scope of work occurring in the mosquito-borne research community.</p>

<p>“On the contrary, all of us who work in the field are repeatedly stunned by the IPCC pronouncements. We protest, but are rarely quoted, and if so, usually as a codicil to the scary stuff.”

</p>

[simba]

<p>fundingfather you are too paranoid. Not every one works like the buffoon whitehouse.</p>

[1of42]

<p>fundingfather: Unfortunately, the 5 skeptics you’ve posted so far don’t quite go toe-to-toe with the thousands of climate experts who are convinced anthropogenic global warming is happening. In context, that few people means nothing, except that there’s insane people out there - and they’re in every group.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>^^ The controversy is less about whether global warming is happening or not but rather, whether human activity really affects it significantly and how much. It’s not 5 scientists against thousands.</p>

[1of42]

<p>Given that a ton signed the UN report, and I have yet to see a document signed by a comparable number of reputable and credentialed climate experts that disputes its claims, I would dispute your proposition that there is equal debate.</p>

[1sokkermom]

<p>Here is a good commentary of the “debate”. A debate that Mr. Gore refuses to engage in.
<a href=“http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/10/12/george-radwanski-memo-from-a-global-warming-agnostic.aspx[/url]”>http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/10/12/george-radwanski-memo-from-a-global-warming-agnostic.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“There are huge – and still unanswered – questions about the likely consequences of global warming, and therefore about the cost-benefit analysis of possible measures to address the problem. Contrary to widespread impressions, what’s at issue isn’t simply replacing our light bulbs with fluorescents, driving more energy-efficient cars and watching businesses swap carbon credits. A meaningful campaign to stop, or even significantly slow, global warming would have a massive impact on our lifestyles, our prosperity and our freedom to make individual choices without state interference.”</p>

<p>“None of this is to say that global warming isn’t an enormously important concern, or that it should be ignored. But between the revered zealots and the discredited deniers, there’s room for “global warming agnostics” who want and deserve a more thoughtful debate in our public discourse than we’ve seen to date.”</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>“Given that a ton signed the UN report, and I have yet to see a document signed by a comparable number of reputable and credentialed climate experts that disputes its claims, I would dispute your proposition that there is equal debate.”</p>

<p>Obviously you did not read the reports that I posted or the others that are linked. If you did, you would see a pattern of the IPCC cherry picking its “experts” with those who agree with the approved view. This discredits the entire report. But, even if you believe the IPCC report, it should be enough to discredit the Al Gore super-alarmist view.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>“In context, that few people means nothing, except that there’s insane people out there - and they’re in every group.”</p>

<p>I rest my case in terms of the way the global warming crowd has to resort to demonizing and personal destruction of any scientist that challenges them.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p><a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/13/an_inconvenient_peace_prize/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/13/an_inconvenient_peace_prize/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

THIS YEAR’S Nobel Peace Prize justly rewards the thousands of scientists of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These scientists are engaged in excellent, painstaking work that establishes exactly what the world should expect from climate change.</p>

<p>The other award winner, former US vice president Al Gore, has spent much more time telling us what to fear. While the IPCC’s estimates and conclusions are grounded in careful study, Gore doesn’t seem to be similarly restrained.

The politician-turned-moviemaker loses sleep over a predicted rise in heat-related deaths. There’s another side of the story that’s inconvenient to mention: rising temperatures will reduce the number of cold spells, which are a much bigger killer than heat. The best study shows that by 2050, heat will claim 400,000 more lives, but 1.8 million fewer will die because of cold. Indeed, according to the first complete survey of the economic effects of climate change for the world, global warming will actually save lives.

Gore concentrates on his call for world leaders to cut CO2 emissions, yet there are other policies that would do much more for the planet. Over the coming century, developing nations will be increasingly dependent on food imports from developed countries. This is not primarily a result of global warming, but a consequence of more people and less arable land in the developing world.</p>

<p>The number of hungry people depends much less on climate than on demographics and income. Extremely expensive cuts in carbon emissions could mean more malnourished people. If our goal is to fight malnutrition, policies like getting nutrients to those who need them are 5,000 times more effective at saving lives than spending billions of dollars cutting carbon emissions.</p>

<p>Likewise, global warming will probably slightly increase malaria, but CO2 reductions will be far less effective at fighting this disease than mosquito nets and medication, which can cheaply save 850,000 lives every year. By contrast, the expensive Kyoto Protocol will prevent just 1,400 deaths from malaria each year.</p>

<p>While we worry about the far-off effects of climate change, we do nothing to deal with issues facing the planet today. This year, malnutrition will kill almost 4 million people. About 3 million lives will be lost to HIV/AIDS, and 2 1/2 million people will die because of indoor and outdoor air pollution. A lack of micronutrients and clean drinking water will claim 2 million lives each.</p>

<p>With attention and money in scarce supply, we should first tackle the problems with the best solutions, doing the most good throughout the century. If we focus on solving today’s problems, we will leave communities strengthened, economies more vibrant, and infrastructures more robust. This will enable these societies to deal much better with future problems - including global warming. Committing to massive cuts in carbon emissions will leave future generations poorer and less able to adapt to challenges.

</p>

<p>The issue isn’t so much whether or not there is global warming – it’s about the cost effectiveness of human intervention.</p>

<p>Anytime an issue becomes extremely politicized, I ask myself, “What’s going on?” This should be an issue for scientists, not politicians. The fact that it’s become such a point of contention between liberals and conservatives makes me suspicious. In any case, the idea that humans can fully understand or change global climate seems like hubris to me.</p>

<p>If VCs in Silicon Valley are engaged with this issue, that should be a red flag – there’s money involved here somewhere. And given what happened with the .com catastrophe, I trust VCs as much as the IRS.</p>

[Alumother]

<p>Oh come on. VCs and their ilk made the capitalist, dominant US we love today. They may have brought about the dot com crash but look at the detritus left on the shore by that wave. Ecommerce, increased industrial productivity. If the VCs are throwing money at it, you can be sure that money will be made there. And if money will be made there, generally, as a huge believer in capitalism, that means benefit will be derived. Which means, in this case, there probably is harm to the environment now that technology, i.e. people, can solve.</p>

<p>Do we know how? No. Otherwise we wouldn’t need the VCs to absorb the risk. Risk/return. One of those few concepts from business school that are valuable.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>Here is a list of 60 more “insane” scientists just in Canada:
<a href=“http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html[/url]”>http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html&lt;/a&gt;

“Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase, used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming, and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes, and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural “noise.” The new Canadian government’s commitment to reducing air, land, and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to “stopping climate change” would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change, and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>If there is money to be made, then it is no longer treated as a scientific issue. It’s about capitalism (which I support, of course.) But then let’s not pretend it’s about polar bears, starving third world people or rising sea levels – it’s just another scam to put money in the pockets of a few.</p>

[thisoldman]

<p>

Here is a good commentary of the “debate”. A debate that Mr. Gore refuses to engage in.

</p>

<p>And thus debate the debate?</p>

<p>Since I essentially already have mine. I shall make a comment: The GOP has essentially admitted (although not quite stated) through C. Rice , that Humans have significantly impacted Earth’s climate. We can still debate whether one group was or currently is ignored, however the essence of the real issue is if one side is more correct than the other and its consequences. </p>

<p>It is pretty much like Insurance. Insurance works best when everybody participates. Insurance works the least when very few people participate. The cost of insurance is relatively small in relation to the consequences of not having insurance and the peril occurs. Once the peril occurs, it is too late, and the cost of the peril is devastating. The conservative view is to insure against the peril. The optimist view is to take chances. </p>

<p>Its like God. If there is no God, you may live what ever you desire. If there is a God, we like to all live in Heaven. A conservative view is to embrace God and encourage everyone else believe in God also, for the betterment of the corporal life. The liberal view is to ignore God to the misfortune of the whole. </p>

<p>Tying this to Higher Education> The conservative stance is to invest in our children’s education and promote it for everyone. The liberal or laissez-faire position is allow everyone to fend for themselves. The founding fathers were conservative because education promoted their particular interests (some one to buy “Poor Richard’s Almanac”) and provisions made to tax the public. </p>

<p>Obviously, I am pretty conservative. I have more to lose than you.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>Venture capitalists are not stupid, but then again they are not scientists either. They see the politics of the situation and realize that there will be money to be made once legislation starts flying - simple as that. If there was a groundswell of politics and money to attack AIDS in Africa or putting a man on Mars, the venture capitalists would be right there playing the system.</p>

[Alumother]

<p>sjmom, you misunderstand me. VCs do not not, on average, invest in scams. They invest real people’s money in real businesses in search of real returns on that investment. My position on this thread is not whether or not Gore should have won the Nobel Prize. I don’t presume to second guess the Academy. However, I think those who want to say that environmental degradation is either a scam or something we cannot affect are choosing to have a point of view to support their political views. And, consequently, are making a big foolish mistake.</p>

<p>And ff, very little money can be made on regulation alone unless that regulation addresses a real issue. Witness all the businesses begun to address Sarbanes-Oxley and how little money they really made. BTW, there has been a groundswell to deal with AIDS. It just affects far fewer people than does environmental degredation and therefore there is less money to be made in its cure.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>To use VC activity as “proof” of a scientific hypothesis is beyond silly.</p>

[thisoldman]

<p>And here is an except from wikipedia, of one of the 60 “scientists” of global warming. </p>

<p>

Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a “review” in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)</p>

<p>None of the coauthors of “Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson’s 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon.

</p>

<p>Would you take advice from a Doctor of Podiatry for a toothache?</p>

[Alumother]

<p>Well who do you think the VCs get their advice from? Do you think they invest in a vaccum? Follow straws in the wind looking for tulips? It’s not a formal proof, it’s an existence proof.</p>

<p>The invisible hand strikes again.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>thisoldman,
You know that you are not talking science when you use a Wikipedia article to defend your position. You do realize how Wikipedia is written, don’t you? Here is just one tip that the article is bogus:</p>

<p>It says, “None of the coauthors of “Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher.”</p>

<p>Did you check the list of signees?</p>

[standrews]

<p>Virginia’s state climatologist was forced out because he is skeptical of global warming.</p>

<p>Also,</p>

<p>“The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to “Holocaust Deniers” and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.”</p>

<p><a href=“U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works”>U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works;