[Zipperfish]

Les-R wrote:

So, when Was the last time a Nobel Peace Prize winner had a signifigant impact on global politics? Specificy in convincing the many people desperate to kill each other to 'make nice plzkthx'?

Uth blurble nth cn proob le ganth. Jesus, learn to spell buddy.

[Zipperfish]

sasquatch2 wrote:

Zipperfish

Quote:

My bubble isn't burst. Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize. That bubble is going to last for weeks! This is one win that Florida can't take away.

Have fun with your bubble. Florida, Antarctica and Greenland may not take it away but the Nobel Committee will look even sillier when Florida doesn't flood and Antarctica and Greenland don't melt.

The British High Court has already so ruled......based upon expert testimony not political hacks and UN bureaucrats. Even relied on the IPCC's own press releases. The IPCC has run for cover lately what with Hansen and Mann exposed as frauds.

Just saw John Stewart and his Daily Show open the political offensive against Gore running for POTUS.
And you think I am.....??????
No mercy.

Yes, Justice Burton of the British Court ruled, and I quote: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." That I call a ringing endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.

[Scape]

Waits for the 'Hockey puck' to be dropped...

[Ripcat]

Soccer balls!!!!! There won't be any ice to drop a puck on in 100 years...

And energy will cost so much we won't be able to afford to operate neighbourhood arenas......

[Calbeck]

Zipperfish wrote:

Quote:

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

In all frankness, that's an extreme stretch. It's practically an endorsement of "chaos theory", in that no actual link of cause and effect need be shown. One might as well have given the prize to the man who invented the fly-ash trap, since that actually did massively reduce airborne industrial pollution and thus directly contributed to the very goals of emissions reduction that Gore merely proposes.

Has the Nobel Prize become a "talking has more import than doing" organization?

Scape wrote:

So who of the 181 nominees should have taken the prise?

I've already mentioned Irena Sendler, a Polish woman who saved the lives of over 2000 Jewish children from the Warsaw Ghetto during World War II, but you didn't respond.

Personally, I think risking one's life to save thousands of children in the middle of a war zone is well within the intentions and designs of the Peace Prize.

[Schleihauf]

Zipperfish wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

My bubble isn't burst. Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize. That bubble is going to last for weeks! This is one win that Florida can't take away.

I repeat my question: what has Al Gore contributed to world peace?

To quote the Nobel Prize organization (here):

Quote:

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Oh I get it now hes just trying to prevent a future war: Battlefield 2142

Seriously though I don't know if I would have given the award to Al Gore. He isn't crusading for global warming in the name of future peace hes doing it for the environment.

[Zipperfish]

Calbeck wrote:

In all frankness, that's an extreme stretch. It's practically an endorsement of "chaos theory", in that no actual link of cause and effect need be shown. One might as well have given the prize to the man who invented the fly-ash trap, since that actually did massively reduce airborne industrial pollution and thus directly contributed to the very goals of emissions reduction that Gore merely proposes.

Has the Nobel Prize become a "talking has more import than doing" organization?

Well, I imagine there is no such thing as a non-controversial Nobel Peace Prize winner. Recall that even the now virtually canonized Martin Luther King was widely reviled in the US when he won. Jimmy Carter still is. Nelson Mandela's prize was controversial. Even Mother Teresa. Last year's winner, Muhammed Yunus wasn't that controversial, but his work had little to do with "peace" either.

I guess if you agree with the winner then it's a great honour, and if you don't then it's not important, just political. Politics and the Nobel Peace Prize is like steroids and the Olympics. An unwelcome but unavoidable taint.

[sasquatch2]

Zipperfish

Quote:

Well, I imagine there is no such thing as a non-controversial Nobel Peace Prize winner. Recall that even the now virtually canonized Martin Luther King was widely reviled in the US when he won. Jimmy Carter still is. Nelson Mandela's prize was controversial. Even Mother Teresa. Last year's winner, Muhammed Yunus wasn't that controversial, but his work had little to do with "peace" either.

I guess if you agree with the winner then it's a great honour, and if you don't then it's not important, just political. Politics and the Nobel Peace Prize is like steroids and the Olympics. An unwelcome but unavoidable taint.

GOOD POST!R=UP

Keep it up and you will become a hockey stick not a puck.

[Jabrwock]

BartSimpson wrote:

Actually, they did. They gave a Nobel Prize to the fellow who runs the microbank that mostly benefits women in India.

That was the Nobel Prize in Economics though, right?

The Peace prize seems partially focused on reductions in arms (and fostering peace through ending wars), but also for helping foster "fraternity between nations", which advances the cause of peace by promoting international co-operation.

In that sense, Al Gore & the IPCC brought together international groups to address the idea of climate change. It has nothing to do with whether global warming is real, or not, but rather the fact that those two brought everyone together to talk about it.

For those wondering what discussions about global climate change have to do with peace, think about it. Global climate change has the potential to affect things like crops and water supplies. And what happens when an impoverished 3rd world people get their farms wiped out and their water dry up? Why invade their neighbors and take their crops and water of course.

So by bringing potential climate change into the public eye and discussing it's impacts, they are essentially also addressing how global climate change might affect the cause of peace. Rather than ending a current war, they are looking into whether they can prevent future ones...

[sasquatch2]

Jabrwock

Quote:

Global climate change has the potential to affect things like crops and water supplies. And what happens when an impoverished 3rd world people get their farms wiped out and their water dry up? Why invade their neighbors and take their crops and water of course.

Which involves several false assumptions:

That GLOBAL WARMING is actually occurring......no evidence Hansen/NASA temp data indicates the hot time was the 1930's....not the 90's. WHAT WARMING?

That a rise in climate temperature will have catastrophic effects. The cold 70's witnessed a severe drought in the Sub-Sahara. The American High Plains were called the American Desert prior to the current warming following the Little Ice Age. That Kansas and Nebraska TOTO.

Starving nations lack the resources to conduct wars. The basic needed resource is healthy people.

[sasquatch2]

Zipperfish

Quote:

Yes, Justice Burton of the British Court ruled, and I quote: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." That I call a ringing endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.

Identifying 9 errors and placing a lable of political propaganda on "The Inconvenient Truth" and ordering disclaimers and warnings prior to exposure is not a "ringing endorsement.

[hurley_108]

sasquatch2 wrote:

That GLOBAL WARMING is actually occurring......no evidence Hansen/NASA temp data indicates the hot time was the 1930's....not the 90's. WHAT WARMING?

What data? Link please.

[Jabrwock]

sasquatch2 wrote:

Starving nations lack the resources to conduct wars. The basic needed resource is healthy people.

No, what's needed is troops healthier than the locals, and cheap guns. Something impoverished nations seem to have no shortage of...

And as I said, the idea is not that global warming is occurring, but that the causes of peace were furthered by getting nations together to talk about it, and talk about what effects *might* or *might not* occur. Doesn't actually matter what conclusion they came to, as long as they actually sat down together to talk about it. That's the "fostering fraternity between nations" part the peace prize cares about.

[Zipperfish]

sasquatch2 wrote:

Zipperfish

Quote:

Yes, Justice Burton of the British Court ruled, and I quote: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." That I call a ringing endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.

Identifying 9 errors and placing a lable of political propaganda on "The Inconvenient Truth" and ordering disclaimers and warnings prior to exposure is not a "ringing endorsement.

Then I'll repeat, though it appears that you have been punch drunk for so long even your rudimentary comprehension skills have been seriously affected:

Justice Burton of the British Court wrote:

Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.

The judge said the film was primarily political, as opposed to scinetific, in nature. I'd agree with that. Not do I think it's abd thing to advise kids, or anyone wtahcing the film, of that. I think it would be agreat idea to show it next to the Great Global Warming Swindle (after, of course, Judge Burton attaches his list of disclaimers and warnings to it) .

Then the kids could make up their own minds about the issue.

I imagine most repsonsible teachers are doing something similar anyway.

[sasquatch2]

a unfairly generous take on Hansen

Quote:

In August 2007 blogger Stephen McIntyre noticed that many temperature records from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) displayed a discontinuity around the year 2000. NASA corrected the data and reported that "data for 2000 and later years were inadvertently appended to USHCN data for prior years without including the adjustments at these stations that had been defined by the NOAA National Climate Data Center."[21] The correction resulted in a slight (0.15 degree C) decrease in U.S. average temperatures post-2000, and 1934 replaced 1998 as the warmest year in the U.S. Note that the years have changed rankings before: in a 2001 paper 1934 was marginally warmer than 1998. Hansen argues that using yearly rankings in this way magnifies tiny differences, and that addition of new data to an analysis always causes values to fluctuate slightly. He further states that the difference between the 1934 and 1998 temperatures is insignificant and that the adjustment effect on the global temperature record is invisible.[

Also insignifigant enough to be evidence of a warming trend.

WHAT WARMING?