The usual “we are right” and the rest of the scientists have an “agenda” as if Gore didn’t with his prattleing of numbers even most in the biased IPCC don’t agree with.

The jury is still out and the 90-99% figure is only if you dismiss the 40% of scientists who disagree with the IPCC line and are therefore ignored.

How gore won anything for his ludicrous distortion of the available data is beyond me.

In any case it’s a moot point since Europe will not hit their reductions even with cheating (start date) and without China and India no effort is worth the powder to blow it straight to hell.

Should Al Gore have won this year's Nobel Peace Prize? Why / Why not?
Answers.com defines the Nobel Peace Prize thusly:

In that context, Al Gore is very deserving of the award. The environment is a worldwide concern; it affects everyone on this planet’s quality of life. Mr. Gore has worked tirelessly for many years to bring his message of concern for the Earth to all the corners of the globe. Wars will be fought over resources as they dwindle (see Iraq). Fighting to preserve resources in a peaceful manner is most deserving of this prestigious award.

After hearing much blathering from the right about how global warming is a hoax and that CO2 is a naturally occurring phenomenon and we shouldn’t be worried, after watching An Inconvenient Truth, I have a better understanding of how CO2 levels are increasing past the point of our atmosphere’s capacity to dispel them. The most alarming thing I’ve seen in regards to global warming is the loss of vast expanses of ice at the poles. This is something that is impossible to deny.

Is this particular Nobel more symbolic than the others, thus more appropriate for making a political statement vs. meeting rigid award guidelines?
Aren’t they all? The Peace Prize has always stirred controversy. As with any other award, there are as many opinions as there are people in this world.


I got a great belly laugh at that one!

Oh I'm sorry. I assumed that since you were debating with me, you'd actually read my posts!


Egg on my face indeed!? I guess you hadn't read my previous post or else you'd have read that I wrote:

Go read his bio for yourself. I quoted him directly (the bold text).


Well, I've never heard of (denier) web sites so I have nothing to say to this except that I am not interested in proving one way or another what has caused global warming. If it turns out to be human induced carbon emissions, then I have no problem with regarding that as the cause. My problem rests with the 'party faithful' in Oslo rewarding a film making politician for having conferred the 'greatest benefit on mankind' in this last year.


Since you apparently didn't read my earlier posts, then your probably unaware that I have already addressed this (and I didn't make any reference to 'cosmic rays').

My earlier point, which I repeat once again for your benefit:
Please tell me if your confused by this because it seems perfectly clear to me. From the tenth to the fourteenth century, the Earth, as chronicled by European records, and further documented by ice core samples from the eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula was subjected to a period of global warming.

There after the Earth was then subjected to a period of global cooling (known as the Little Ice Age) which appears to have ended around 1850. Today, we live in a period of global warming again as apparently the Earth's climate swings through long cycles of hot and cold temperatures. Currently we are experiencing temperatures 0.8 degree's C higher than any previously known. This could mean that we humans have influenced a natural event, or it could mean our understandings of temperatures in the middle ages are not that accurate.

The bottom line is (and James E Hansen himself doesn't deny this) WE DON'T KNOW what is causing the current temperatures. We didn't know what caused the preceeding cold period or the Medieval Warm Period before that either.

The ONLY thing we can be assured of, is our IGNORANCE!

And that goes for your man Al Gore just as much as it goes for you, me and DaffyGrrl too.

Aaah, there it is again ... the controversy around the Nobel Peace Prize ... a reoccuring event here on .

Last year we had a thread about El Baradei and the AIEI, it was then that Carlitoswhey wrote this which prompted me to jump into the discussion.


link

This year Al Gore and the IPCC and again inappropriate and political biased statements pop up again.
For example:


Oh well, it could be have been expected, I suppose.





1. I lean more towards this opinion expressed by Moif. Although I believe Gore should be commended and applauded for his attempt to bring global warming to the forefront, I have trouble to recognize in what way his actions have benefitted peace.

2. Many of the official nominees deserve it, for example, Irena Sendler of Poland, who saved 2,500 Jewish children during World War II.

3. I believe it is. It is the most tremendous honour to receive this prize.

Agreed. Oddly, the International Herald Tribune, a unit of the New York Times, got a fact wrong.


I have to agree with moif here. This award doesn't have anything to do with peace. The "wars over resources" problem is as old as man. Senator Gore has done nothing to solve that problem by any of his works, hence he really doesn't deserve an award. Heck, given his copious use of resources, he is actually contributing to the problem (if it exists as he states) merely by his travels and lifestyle acquired by selling the story.


Indeed. The global warming people, at least those promoting "doomsday" scenarios are merely the latest pollyanish incarnation of "The end is near." Ironically, they are the same people who look down upon evangelicals who are at least preparing for the end, rather than merely haranging us about it. It's really amazing. Paul Ehrlich, the guy who wrote "population bomb," to which BaphometsAdvocate refers, is still claiming he was right, even though he was wrong.


Dude, that is some big swingin' hubris you have there. We dismissed Ehrlich's book just because his predictions of armageddon didn't come true for several decades. We should treat his next book with deadly seriousness because, he just may be right this time. Live and learn, indeed.

It took the committee 15 years to award Einstein the award for physics. Given the history of the peace prize, it's clear that it is just a venue for political points, not a meaningful award in the sense Nobel intended.


Indeed. The Israeli Air Force on July 6 did more to promote peace via nuclear non-proliferation than Al Baradei has done in his entire lifetime. My point stands.

I'm not sure how firing a missile at a <fill in the blank, the jury is still out> does anything to promote peace. A typical response would be to redouble your efforts. If pulling another Osirak mission is the new counter proliferation strategy than we are all in for it. That's a pretty big leap to equate El Baradei as dilly-dollyier and an unannounced act of aggression as somehow more worthy of a peace prize. Pursuit of action over deliberation was used in varying levels in Iraq and this did not push the country in the right direction. Advocating this as a remedy of what is right is akin to downing a bottle of arsenic as a little of what does you harm does you good. Repeating a mistake does not correct a wrong.

Taking out a nuclear facility in a nation that sponsors anti-Western terrorism prevents them from acquiring nuclear weapons. Does that help you see how it promotes peace?


Saddam redoubled his efforts after Osirak and never acquired nukes despite the effort. How is this a failure, exactly?


The (toothless, blind) nuclear watchdog was completely unaware of the Syrian facility. Yet, he was a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for his contributions to nuclear non-proliferation. How is this a leap? Off the top of my head, I can name five or six rogue nations that should never, ever acquire these weapons. If I were a watchdog, I'd be, um, watching them. He and the IAEA are a joke.


Dude, they didn't get nukes in the 80's or 90's, largely due to the Israeli strike. That's a win. How about this as a test for whether the strike promoted peace. No country in the middle east has protested the Israeli strike against the Syrians. Why do you think this is? Could it be that they don't want Syria to have nukes either? Maybe a nuclear arms race in the most unstable, resource-rich neighborhood in the world is a bad idea, worthy of a few missles lobbed in now and again if that's the price to pay?


What was the mistake that was repeated?

Should Al Gore have won this year's Nobel Peace Prize? Why / Why not?

I'm okay with it because this planet either needs to lose its humans or the humans need to develop alternative, non-polluting, non-emitting (CO2, methane, mercury) energy sources (meaning a bunch of them). I have serious doubts that humans are smart enough not to exterminate ourselves.

Any suggestions for a more deserving winner?

Not off the top of my head. Seems a moot question to me, like speculating what would have happened had Gore won the presidency.

Is this particular Nobel more symbolic than the others, thus more appropriate for making a political statement vs. meeting rigid award guidelines?

Got me. Not a mind reader. Don't know if the guidelines are all that rigid either. Eh, Gore won another one, that's all there is to it.

Maybe there ought to be a Nobel War Prize, just to even things out. But with that prize, instead of getting a big chunk of cash, you get a bill to compensate the families of all the people killed.

But come to think about it, there is already an award for that. It comes from higher authority than the Nobel committee.

I find it hilarious that anyone thinks Al Gore being a parrot is worthy of a Nobel Prize.

If you're talking about bills for all the people killed... consider that Vietnam was started by JFK, Clinton left the Rwandans to croak, and we were attacked 5 times under Clinton's watch. It's a universal statement. How many invoices would we send?

There are a large number of scientists who can't say that humans are the cause of global warming, and for Gore to get a prize based upon junk science that he regurgitated says a lot about the prize committee. It figures.

Actually- I think the entire right wing blow up over this award is pure sour grapes- once again, Al was right, the right was wrong (as usual ) and they are really upset about having an "I told you so" rubbed in thier face (again)

How was Al Gore proven "right?" Because a group of people predisposed to like him and his ideas gave him an award? And who precisely on the right is blowing up? Calling out the fact that this has little to do with peace (despite your Chicken Little assertions) and that the Nobel Peace Prize has (and appears to be this time) been politically driven is hardly blowing up.

I believe you just proved my point.

Have you considered the potential for blowback? If the intelligence is faulty you've just encouraged militancy in your opponent. Being a neighbour I can't see how this helps Israel in the long term.


There were an estimated 400 scientists of nuclear related fields in Iraq during the Osirak project. After the attack that number elevated substantially. The attack mainstreamed the field and made nuclear development a priority for several M.E. nations. A missile attack is more of a delay than deterrence. This is proliferation via the wack-a-mole approach.

Move past Osirak for a moment. Armed with the knowledge that Saddam's nuclear program was dead, the decision to act in 2003 was still given. This raises significant questions on the judgement of the man who issued those orders, namely Mr. Bush. Remember the wmd justifications were in full bloom and the weapons inspectors were coming up short on the chemical agents purported by Powell in his infamous speech to the UN. Again this comes back to the original premise, 'Why is deliberation castigated for nobel laureates?'



What would you have El Baradei do? Over and above condeming yet another signitory NPT nation by a non-signitory member El Baradei would look silly taking Syria to the security council if he couldn't even construct marginal evidence supporting the allegation. If say this target site ended up an anti-air missile battery El Baradei would have no involvment whatsoever. And you call him toothless for it! Watching involves assessing credible threats, not wild goose chases. Then again doesn't Iraq serve as a metaphor for wild goose chases gone wrong?

Let's look at your allegation you've stated as fact. If you are going to post a date of July 6 as a crowning moment in the achievement for peace, could you refer to the Sept. 6 date rather than the admitted typo discrepancy within your own link? The simultaneous translator made an error which prompted the UN officials to review the script. Both USA Today and Yahoo picked up the error. For the UN minutes where Mr. Darwash clarified his own comments go here. (emphasis mine)



Acting on a bad piece of intelligence is precisely what you wanted the man to do. You've confused recklessness for conciseness as an essential quality for a laureate.


There is no win in flooding the region with scientists who may or may not follow the A.Q. Khan example and sell their wares to the highest bidder. Osirak opened up the floodgates. As to your silent consensus notion, the target was never properly disclosed and the pause is that of someone waiting for clarification before making criticisms. Had this simple act of clarification been practiced in 2003, the patience could have yielded significant dividends in a matter of months had the weapons inspectors not been kicked out.

When it comes to taking actions which could start wars, I'd like to err on the side of caution and get my facts straight. I've curious why El Baradei engenders hate out of you. The best response I can come up with is he does not employ the same blind faith, the surety of action as Mr. Bush does. Without accurate intel all you have is faith right? The Nobel peace prize is awarded to those who seek a "fraternity between nations". Popping off a missile whenever the craving strikes seems a little counter intuitive.

Heh, I suppose you'd change your mind if you had won, huh? People are like that.

Actually, Vietnam can be traced back to Eisenhower, and it seems to me that Nixon had a little something to do with it. But you're not thinking globally, and I do believe that's one of humanity's problems.

There's another one about scapegoating. And the one about hey, this guy might be bad but that guy is worse!

Zzzzzz indeed. Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. That's a fact, jack. The world has a huge energy demand. Yep, and oil futures hit $90 a barrel this past week.

It's all Clinton's fault!

So, your story is that there was no nuclear facility? Read this, and let me know if you would perhaps like to change your approach.




How many of those nations, including Iraq, have nuclear weapons today? Whack-a-mole seems to have worked so far, which, given the "cooperation" of the UN and its attendant agencies, is actually impressive.


I'm happy to discuss the failures that led to the conflict in Iraq; however, President Bush and Secretary Powell have not won the Nobel Prize for peace, so don't need to be defended or castigated here.

Good point on my getting the date wrong. You seem to believe the UN / Syrian spin regarding the "translation problem" despite the fact that the link I provided has multiple sources attesting to the use of the word "nuclear" so we seem to disagree on that.

Should Al Gore have won this year's Nobel Peace Prize? Why / Why not?

What peace has he secured? War in Iraq... nope. WOT... nope. Cats and dogs now get along... sometimes, but doubt Gore had anything to do with that.

Any suggestions for a more deserving winner?

Sadly none come to mind.

Is this particular Nobel more symbolic than the others, thus more appropriate for making a political statement vs. meeting rigid award guidelines?

I believe this was a political statement and the NPP has lost credibility in my eyes.

The State Department had concerns about the accuracy of the ubiquitous "Israeli officials". This is the primary reason for their lack of comment and also what spurred conjecture out of ABC to speculate. If there was concrete evidence the Mossad would have shouted this from the nearest rooftop because it would have initiated a process of sanctions against Syria which would have been very helpful to them. The fact they refused comment tells me they have no clue as to what they hit.

If you wish to bring sanctions onto a country you don't use the third person as your smoking gun reference especially one that has a history of bad relations as your objective source. The opportunity for personal bias combined with anonymity is a recipe for error. ABC's article is riddled with 'officials say'. When I see this type of article, there is no way to follow up on who said what. This serves as propaganda material and I will file this away for future discussion. This article represents part of a larger attempt by the VP to cast Syria as an enabler and Iran as a supplier of nuclear material. I now have one more article to submit as part of the "media blitz" for war.

I think it is fitting that as Fox began the case for suspicion from Mr. Darwish the case ends with the UN apologizing to him and reprimanding the interpreter. This should tell you how much faith the UN places in 'officials say'. Your 'multiple nuclear references' comment does not equate well with Farhan Haq's comment of "There was no use of the word nuclear". See the discreptancy?

It makes no sense for Israel to withhold real evidence from the UN and the security council as to do so runs counter to their own interests. Further, if something more substantial cannot be brought to the table, this constitutes a lack of evidence and we should begin to file suit on an unexplained, premeditated act of war.

Late Edit:
While this may deviate from the original thread, the allegations are causing a stir unto themselves. Congressman Hoekstra, known for his aggressive ideas on the war has issued an uncharactistic challenge to the admininstration. He has questioned the selective leaking of the investigation and as I have pointed out above, highlighted the dubious nature of the intel.

Here are Hoekstra's comments. Link


The point of this post was to demonstrate this article is failing the sniff test at the UN, Congress, NewYork Times and now the Washington Times. Should AD be any different?

Well, if the 'sniff test' is being administered by the UN, Congress or the New York Times, I think the results are pre-ordained spin. (I didn't see the Washington Times in your links)

As for the facts, we still disagree. And so does the front page of the Washington Post



As for Hoestra's concern and the Bush administration leaks to the media, it seems logical to me that they are trying to spin this to minimize the North Korean angle in anticipation of more appeasement of that regime to move the 6 party talks along. I don't understand it, but then again, I didn't understand the Clinton administration kowtowing to that Stalinist dictatorship either. They used the same sort of leaks, as I recall.

Not that any of this has to do with Al Gore winning a Nobel Prize