Coffeehouse Thread

86 posts

Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • blowdart

    Rossj wrote:
    

    Thing is, they DID get it right, but the media reporting is wrong. The court did not find that there were errors in the documentary, Mr Dimmock lost his case and journalists can't tell the difference between 'errors' and errors.


    Ah but the general conclusion is it's not a scientific study; as the government were pushing it as, but as a political polemic. Which is fine; but documentary it's not.

  • j0217995

    ScanIAm, Thanks for the nice comments. I would also like to disagree with Eagle that global warming is a war. What about the problems in Darfur or other problems throughout the world. I would have given the Peace Prize to all those Monks that were protesting or the people that were blogging and raising awareness of the monks protesting? Seems to me this are all bigger issues then whether or not the temp in the oceans rise a couple of degrees.

  • eagle

    Global warming is here, you can't debate it away.

  • j0217995

    I'm not debating it away, I'm debating how raising awareness of global warming is worthy of a "Peace Prize"

  • phreaks

    eagle wrote:
    
    j0217995 wrote:
    I don't understand how global wrming has anything to do with peace



    There is a war being waged by the oil industry and right wing mutant money loving Christians.
     
    Just look at the vial hateful comments added to a thread about a Peace Prize.
     

    Our planet is a living organism and as we cut down her trees and burn more oil we are affecting our destiny.



    On the other-hand, you never resort to the use of hateful or pejorative adjectives to describe those of differing political ideologies.


  • eagle

    Why didn't you say that to the global warming deniers?
     
    There is no debate, ideology is not science and you are illustrating why Al got the Nobel Prize.

  • raymond

    eagle wrote:
    
    Why didn't you say that to the global warming deniers?
     
    There is no debate, ideology is not science and you are illustrating why Al got the Nobel Prize.


    Actually very few people are denying that some global warming is taking place.

    The real issue is what is causing it, natural causes or man, and what if anything should be done about if it is caused by man.

    I am on the natural causes side with man's contribution being insignificant.

    Therefore nothing can or should be done about.

    Cool





  • ScanIAm

    Dharma Punk wrote:
    
    ScanIAm wrote:
    Luckily, it was left in the hands of people who are more prone to thinking about peace...


    Again, I'd like to point out that the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Yasser Arafat.




    Just like the current peace prize was not simply given to Al Gore, but instead was given to Al Gore and the IPCC, I give you:

    1994 Nobel Peace Prize winners wrote:

    1994 Yasser Arafat (ياسر عرفات)
    Shimon Peres (שמעון פרס)
    Yitzhak Rabin (יצחק רבין)
    Palestinian flag Palestinian Authority
    Flag of Israel Israel
    Flag of Israel Israel
    "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East"


    You aren't telling the whole story and you know it.

  • eagle

    raymond wrote:
    

    Therefore nothing can or should be done about.



    Oh, so you're an advocate for nothing...


    .....and extremely determined  too. 

  • Minh

    eagle wrote:
    
    raymond wrote:
    

    Therefore nothing can or should be done about.



    Oh, so you're an advocate for nothing...


    .....and extremely determined  too. 

    An Inaction Activist?
    An Inaudible Advocate?
    An Impassionate Compassionate?
    An Idealogy of Idleness?

  • prndll

    I guess I simply fail to understand why doing things like:

    • not using aerosol sprays
    • not driving petroleum fueled vehicles
    • not giving my time or money to Gores' cause
    • not using CFC's
    • not exhaling carbon dioxide
    • not interviening in the natural order of animals killing animals
    • not buying the hype that only certain things are biodegradable
    • not trying to save the rain forests (as if I ever could)
    • not saving the whales
    • simply existing
    automaticly means that I am against the environment and the world will come to an early end because of me.

    Why does not doing these things mean that in the public eye, I am worse than socialist governments that out right murder people?

    How does not doing these things stop a vulcanic eruption or meteor (global killer) from wiping out entire civilizations?

    How does not doing these things automaticly translate to me being an evil person that does not care? because I do care. I care a great deal about how large numbers of people get so easily duped by a simgle person that's just learned how to be persuasive but actaully does not have in his heart the best interests of anyone but himself.

    I wonder why no one even thinks about airplanes. When 911 happened and all the planes across the US were instantly grounded, things almost instantly started to show improvement (studies were actually done on this). No one considers the raw fuel that planes just DUMP into the atmosphere. This has to be considerably more than what cars do.

    I guess I just find it more interesting that environmentalism is born of politics and lunatics hell bent on fascist ideas of how to control what people do. Gore claims the debate is over. If it was over, it would no longer be debated.

    I would certainly agree that it's wrong to be wastefull. Littering is bad and there are certain things that just shouldn't be done. But it is not wrong to question messages like this when they come from such questionable people with such powers and questionable motives.

    I wonder how much money Gore has enjoyed from the profits of the oil industry.

    If I'm going to be preached to by Gore about how to do things....he needs to be foremost on the scene for showing me through his own actions what to do. He talks alot, but he does exactly the opposite of what he preaches. Let him ride bicycles to work and drive electric cars for a while. Let him give up his jet first...before I give up my truck. Dr. King lead by example and that alone is what made him great. Gore is nothing more than a power hungry fool who gets money from bigger fools.

  • phreaks

    eagle wrote:
    
    Why didn't you say that to the global warming deniers?
     
    There is no debate, ideology is not science and you are illustrating why Al got the Nobel Prize.


    What are your credentials in the field of climatology again?
    I'm just wondering since  you clearly feel righteous enough to mock anyone that doesn't share the same exact opinion with you on the subject.


    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.

    ...

    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.

    "The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

    ...

    The models can't even predict the weather in two weeks, much less 100 years, he says.

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



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

  • eagle

    You don't have to be a meteorologist to know it's raining.

    Our planet is a living organism and as we cut down her trees and burn more oil we are affecting our destiny.

  • prndll

    But....
    How many people other than a meteorologist would now why it's raining or other information like from how high it's coming from or be able to use something more accurate than a knee ache to know when it's going to start or stop?

    Anyone can build and maintain a computer. But, it takes a rare breed to understand why things need to be done while other things don't.

  • eagle

    We all have access to doppler radar now.

  • prndll

    Doppler or whatever tools.....
    all designed and implimented by meteorologists and various other (real) scientists.

  • eagle

    global warming science

    Global warming is already under way. The evidence is vast and the urgency of taking action becomes clearer with every new scientific study. Some of the most obvious signs are visible in the Arctic, where rising temperatures and melting ice are dramatically changing the region’s unique landscapes and wildlife—as well as people’s lives and livelihoods. Across the globe, other early warning signs include melting glaciers, shifting ranges of plants and animals, and the earlier onset of spring.

    Global warming is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that are emitted primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of forests. These gases remain in our atmosphere for decades or even centuries.

    The profound impact rising temperatures have had in the Arctic provides a window into a future we may all experience. With continued warming, we can expect more extreme heat and drought, rising sea levels, and higher-intensity tropical storms. At risk are our coastal property and resources, the livability of our cities in summer, and the productivity of our farms, forests, and fisheries.

    We can’t avoid all the consequences of global warming, but committing ourselves to action today can help ensure our children and grandchildren inherit a healthy world full of opportunity.

  • phreaks

    eagle wrote:
    We all have access to doppler radar now.


    And this has what do with the topic?

    We all have access to doppler; so we should all undertsand meteorology and climatology?

    Meteorologists and computer models have a difficult time forcasting weather a week or 2 in advance, but somehow you're arguing that models that forcast 100 years in the future are reliable?


Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.