|
||
Al Gore Up For Nobel Prize This Week; Right Wingers Prepare to Go Nuts
Al Gore is rumored to be a recipient of the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize when it's announced this Friday, Oct. 12.
The last American to be so honored, Jimmy Carter, won on the very same day the U.S. Senate voted to give George W. Bush authority to use military force against Iraq....something about weapons of mass destruction. The crowd in Oslo has a wicked sense of timing, eh?
Gore's achievement will ensure that the mental stability of his detractors hangs more precariously than a Florida chad. (Bachelor Rush Limbaugh, whatever you do, don't reach for that weekend shack pack of OxyContin in the glove box of your $335,000 Maybach. It ain't worth it, pal!)
All of us share earth's air and water, so a win by the former veep highlights the crucial link between a healthy global environment and the quest for global peace. Climate change affects resources, and we're approaching a precipice. Countries take up arms over resources, or hadn't you noticed?
The broad implications of Gore's focus these past years hit home Sunday, and came from a veteran observer. Jay Barbee, longtime NBC newsman who has covered every NASA flight since Alan Sheppard's in '61, was a guest on Meet The Press.
In discussing the Columbia tragedy of '03, he noted that officials saw the foam fall during liftoff but later opted against using spy satellites to check for damage. If they had they'd have seen the bowling ball-sized hole in the wing and kept the astronauts at the space station. Atlantis, already stacked and in the barn back at Cape Canaveral, could have been wheeled out and sent up to get them, Barbee said.
Then, out of the blue, the old reporter added the following analogy to his tale of the gravely wounded shuttle:
"The bottom line comes down to this. This is an 8,000-mile diameter spacecraft we're on. We're all astronauts. We're all living in a life support system that is only 10,000 feet in thickness, that's keeping us alive on this planet. The day will come, if it's not a genetic virus, if it's not global warming, whatever, the day will come that we can no longer live on this planet. The only solution is to step off it to colonization of the moon or onto other planets. There are 150 or so planets that we could live on that in the coming years we'll be able to reach."
Wow. What a clear and linear thing to say; how fragile and tenuous our hold. I immediately thought about Americans who comprise the modern ideological Right Wing, who act as if this looming disaster is somehow science fiction or millennia away, and who treat "environmentalism" as vaguely communist and "global warming" as speculative liberal fantasy.
Conservatives are not inherently stupid, any more than those in the middle or on the Left. Images of 1,000 year old ice shelves the size of Rhode Island, radically melting and shrinking across the planet in recent decades, are as obvious to a Righty as a Lefty. The potential meaning of such melting is obvious, too.
That's why I'm convinced that the main reason the Right denies global warming is not because they don't recognize plain evidence, but because they do. They know it's not like cleaning up a polluted river. They know it's a systemic, planet-wide problem that requires a systemic, planet-wide response to reverse it, and that means friend and foe alike working peacefully toward a unified goal of healing the body before it dies.
Yet as today's Right sees it, acknowledging this fact would be a step toward what the elder Bush once promoted as the "New World Order," not to mention the economic toes that might be stubbed. The idea that all the world's stakeholders must now collectively save Mother Earth from the very real downside of industrial progress is frightening to them. It smacks of something the "go it alone" gang on the American Right can't begin to accept.
After all, they've already dismissed the multilateral approach to the so-called global war on terror, and it's a disaster. And then there's Katrina. If they bring their management skill set to global warming, it really will be time to abandon ship and book that flight to Alpha Centauri as newsman Barbee suggested!
Gore's Academy Award-winning, fact-filled documentary An Inconvenient Truth made clear that earth's atmosphere is getting hotter, and at a faster pace, thanks to ever-increasing man-made greenhouse gases. The concentration of invisible, odorless, tasteless carbon dioxide alone (C02) in the atmosphere is now 30% greater than before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. That's astounding.
Meanwhile, 200 years late, China's one billion people (that's billion with a "b") and her burgeoning economy are just now joining the fray.
Speaking of what's called "Asia's Womb," Tom Friedman of the NY Times reports that China is constructing the equivalent of two coal-fired power plants every week, and these are the old style kind, the leading worldwide villain in spewing uncaptured C02 into the air. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
I think that's a fancy way of saying we humans are the guilty party.
Playing dumb on global warming -- its causes and impact -- is not an option. The science is in, and the planet is literally weeping. Gore may or may not take Nobel gold on Friday, but the prize is much deserved. It will send a strong international signal that it's time for all nations to come together and get serious. The clock is ticking.
Go, Al, go!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Don't tell anybody, but National Geographic, that famous pagan, leftist anti-war rag, agrees with Al Gore when it comes to global warming. I'm going to have to cancel both grandma's AND grandson's subscription!
http://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html
.
anti-environmentalists are placing a bet..
if they win..
we get to go on living with the same shit in the air that we have been putting there..
if they lose..
we all fucking start breathing through masks until we choke to death or burn up or run out of food or water..
now where would you place your money..
i certainly cannot prove to a fool that gravity exists even with the overwhelming evidence that dropping a hammer on their head would certainly produce the effect i claim as gravity..
and so while i cannot prove to a fool that global climate change exists.. even while their breathing is more fucked up today than it was when they were 10 years old.. i certainly will try.. because if the planet is getting fucked up.. that hammer will hurt not only the fool but me and mine as well.. because that hammer hits everybody..
.
It has nothing to do witn left/right.
Making a film about 'global warming' has nothing to do with peace.
THE BRITISH COURT "11 LIES" MYTH EXPOSED
Many conservatives on this blog (and on their websites) have written flatly that a British Court found "11 lies" in Al Gore's film. Totally made up. Here are the facts:
A lawsuit was filed by a global warming-denying father who wanted the film banned from public schools. The Judge hasn't yet issued his official ruling, so there are no "11 lies" found by a British Court. He's only issued a statement of his intentions; formal ruling expected next week. In a blow to the father, the Judge said that he intends to allow the film to continue in public schools, but that teachers must emphasize that it is, in fact, a political film with a point of view. As for certain facts in the film that dad objected to, the Judge said he'll address those (and how teachers should respond in the classroom) when he issues his formal ruling.
That's it, whole story. So why are conservatives foaming about a British Court finding 11 lies in the film?
Because of a press release by a Dr. James M. Taylor, Senior Fellow at the anti-global warming Heartland Institute, a far right American think tank with funding ties to tobacco and Big Oil. Look up Heartland on Google. The Government Relations guy from ExxonMobil has been on their board and is an adviser. Get it?
Taylor put out a press release (read it here), and he's the one who lists what HE CALLS 11 "factual errors" that HE SAYS the Court identified. All the quotes are his, not the British Court. This got repeated by other news outlets and was falsely transformed into the Judge's ruling, but it was just preemptive spin via press release - from a global warming denying fringe group - on a court ruling before the ruling is even issued!
To repeat: Film continues, teachers must identify its political nature, and issues surrounding facts in the film (and how teachers should handle them) will be addressed by the Judge in his formal ruling.
They lie all the time. Never forget it.
Here's the link to that press release that proves the "11 lies" in the Gore film actually come from the nutty global warming denying Heartland Institute and NOT the British Court.
Notice the quotation marks and how the release clearly states "In the statement below, Mr. James M. Taylor...elaborates on factual errors in the film identified by the court." This is all Taylor's spin, but the Rightwing bloggers have gotten it all wrong and respun it:
http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/10-09-2007/0004678743&EDATE=TUE+Oct+09+2007,+03:30+PM
Yes, but can you prove that Gore's claims were not lies?
Whoever the author was, he certainly makes some really good points.
Nice Ad Hominem attack.
You cannot substantiate the 11 Lies, because (surprise) Gore really told 11 lies.
Instead, you try and link the author to Exxon Mobil.
see: Ad Hominem Fallacy
This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Nothing ad hominem about it. The 11 lies are literally lifted from a press release written by Heritage, not by the British court as you've previously stated, the Court that in truth says the film can go on, rebuffing the father. All conservatives, you as well, have said "England ruled! There's 11 lies." Not at all true. All fantasy. The press release link in the comment above clearly shows that the 11 lies are from an American right wing think tank. The Judge in England hasn't even ruled, and what he's said is that the dad can't yank the film out of classrooms! The full ruling regarding what teachers must say to their students about certain factual assertions in the film comes next week. That's all there is to it, yet your spin is way beyond the reality. Stop making stuff up!
Odd how Huffington Post censors my comments about Peak Oil and how it relates to the Global Warming theory which is being pushed lately. Seems like there are some things which they just don't want anyone to say, I wonder why?
Stow the paranoia. The Huffpost comment software is on the fritz. I've have had trouble a number of completely unrelated subject posts, some of which appear in my profile but not in the comments, then suddenly they appear later.
The nominees are secret-don't go counting your carbon credits before you exhale...
You write "don't go counting your carbon credits before you exhale."
No counting here. I said he's "rumored" to win the Nobel, and I said he "may or may not."
I hope he wins, not for him personally but for the issue he represents and has campaigned on.
Why do conservatives seem so hostile to the Nobel peace prize? Are they so ideologically opposed to peace that it sickens them that there is a prize awarded for it?
I guess it may be because they once gave one to Yasser Arafat.
You wingers have to misrepresent everything.
Yasser Arafat won the award jointly with two Israelis.
In the early 1990s, Arafat and leading Fatah officials engaged the Israeli government in a series of secret talks and negotiations that led to the 1993 Oslo Accords.[66][8] The agreement called for the implementation of Palestinian self-rule in portions of the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five year period, along with an immediate halt to and gradual removal of Israeli settlements in those areas. The accords called for a Palestinian police force to be formed from local recruits and Palestinians abroad, to patrol areas of self-rule. Authority over the various fields of rule, including education and culture, social welfare, direct taxation and tourism, would be transferred to the Palestinian interim government. Both parties also agreed on forming a committee that would establish cooperation and coordination dealing with specific economic sectors, including utilities, industry, trade and communication.[67][68]
Prior to signing the accords, Arafat �" as Chairman of the PLO and its official representative �" signed two letters renouncing violence and officially recognizing Israel on September 9, 1993. In return, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, on behalf of Israel, officially recognized the PLO.[69]
The following year Arafat and Rabin were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Shimon Peres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Arafat#1993_Oslo_Accords
I'm a righty. Most of you would hate my views on social issues.
But dang it, global warming is real. It's real, folks. And some of it, I don't know how much, is caused by our stewardship (or lack thereof) of the environment.
Whereas I may not agree with your social views, I'd probably respect you for having them. And I am glad you are on board with us, as we are all in this together.
Yes, it is real--you people who still think it is some kind of hoax must have been having a hard time avoiding any mention of the many scientific studies that confirm the problem. And you can't have been traveling in Europe, which is deadly serious about it. I would recommend that you read "The World Without Us", by Alan Weisman. You will be shocked by how much we have already screwed over this poor planet of ours.
I agree with you. I'm very into the global warming issue , but I get tired of hacking at the same tired evasions over and over again. The global warming deniers are like creationists, they just keep using the same constantly refuted arguments over and over. I have stopped dealing with the creation/evolution primarily because I got sick and tired of shoveling the same old crap (I've been hearing the 'evolution is against the second law of thermodynamic thing for THIRTY YEARS and they still use it). I'm almost at that point with global warming.
Here is an FAQ page that will deal with about 95% of the GW denial arguments in this thread. I'm not going to waste more of my own energy tracking down each of them line by line for a while. Just go here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Thank you for reading.
I'm a moderate and appreciate a "righty" using common sense. You seem like a lone ranger in the party of denial. I hope there are more of you out there. We need to save our environment first, then we can look forward to demonizing each other at a later date. Rush looks like he could use a good long vacation anyway....
It's interesting that one of the primary reactions to this article is not about the possibility of a Gore Nobel Prize but rather the re-emergence of a debate that I thought was settled. Is global warming real and are we to blame?
Let's say that it's not. Let's say that the vast majority of scientists, the recent United Nations findings and all the anecdotal evidence is wrong and our planet is not warming up and we are not to blame.
So what.
Does that mean we should continue living our, heavily consumer oriented, industrial, disconnected lifestyle?
Are we healthier eating McDonalds and breathing the exhaust from a uncounted cars and factories?
Are we happier, glued to televisions, all day which constantly remind us that we need to buy more stuff?
Are we more secure financially, under the burden of rising credit card debt, created by our consumer culture?
Are we more efficient, driving our big SUV's, leaving the lights on and having all of our goods shipped in from China?
Are we more secure, fighting battles for oil in the middle east and making deals with the most ruthless kinds of dictators?
Even if Global Warming isn't real (Which it is) It seems to me that we would be a lot better off pretending it was.
This isn't just about melting ice caps and rising sea levels. It's about the kind of world we want to live in, and the kind of culture we want to pass on to our children.
Then lets have an honest discussion about the issues and base our decisions on facts, not just pretend that this man made global warming theory is true because some of the reactions would be good things anyways.
A lot of the things you mentioned have nothing whatsoever to do with a warmer planet but are societal issues. I think that the "man made global warming is a disaster" theory has been fabricated primarily because of these other problems. Specifically because of peak oil. Oil is a finite resource and also one that modern civilization is dependent on. It is also a resource that seems to be running out and will become increasingly less available in the very near future. Something has to be done to transform society so that it is viable without the huge ammounts of fossil fuels that are available today, because tomorrow (figuratively) they will not be there.
No one in government or the media wants to come out and say that our oil and gas supplies are depleted and soon we won't be able to do all the things we are now. That would cause panic and damage the economy at a time when it needs to be strong to deal with the loss of cheal oil and gas. So what do they do instead? They create another problem which is much less panic inducing but which will drive people to a very similar reaction.
The way to deal with the type of global warming being hypothesised is to use fewer fossil fuels, right? That also happens to be the way to deal with peak oil and the coming unavailability of fossil fuels. What we are being told is this:
Drive less, get a more efficient vehicle, use alternative fuels. (not because there won't be gas for your car 10 years from now but because we have to 'save the planet')
Develop solar power, wind power and use less electricity. (not because the fossil fuels needed to make electricity won't be there 20 years from now, but becuase we have to 'save the planet')
Actually, all of the things I mentioned are related to global warming.
The war in Iraq, industrial pollution and gas guzzling cars are self explanatory.
Our industrial food system which makes things like Mcdonalds possible is based on chemical fertilizers which are made from fossil fuels. This system is one of the number one reasons for America's Obesity problems.
Our consumer culture, supported by television and manifested in our deepening debt, not only requires many times more electricity than it did just a few decades ago but it also makes far greater demands on our planets resources. The average American uses the equivalent of 11 acres of our planets recourses each year compared to 1/2 and acre in the non-industrial world. All of those recourses need to be found, processed and transported, then transported and processed again when they become waste.
And what does all that work? What powers the factory in China, the Super Cargo Carrier that transports the goods and the Wallmart that sells it? Fossil fuels.
In other words, many of the problems we face in the 21st century are directly related to how we interact with our planet. And the first step in saving the planet is changing ourselves.
Let me get this straight. Global warming is nothing more than a governmental conspiracy to convince us to use fewer resources, while trying to protect us from the reality that our oil supply is running out? Now how is the idea that the planet is on the verge of frying, any less scary than our world running out of oil? To be honest, I'd be less frightened about running out of oil than I would be about our planet's being on the verge of frying.
NBC Nightly News had a story a couple of weeks ago (link below) about Lake Superior, the largest of our Great Lakes. It's drying up. The story interviewed everybody, including locals who have been there since the 1950's.
Yes, there's been a drought, but scientists say the cause is because the temperature of the lake is now 5 degrees warmer than it once was. Hello?
Lake Superior holds 20% of the world's fresh water, but it's fast becoming inferior!
Don't listen to the global warming deniers who bury their head in the sand (of which there will be a lot more!)
This issue is global-wide, and it is starting to have real consequences. These deniers remind me of a miner who sees that the canary in the cage they're carrying in the mine has died, and he says, "Aw, let's keep going, that canary was probably about to die, anyway."
Here's the link to the NBC News story:
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/&fg=&from=00&vid=ec581062-995e-4c9e-bd9b-651128b01b16&playlist=videoByTag:mk:us:vs:0:tag:Source_Nightly%20News:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A
Jacksonfromtejas - According to the 2007 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Lake Superior contains 10% of the world's fresh water.
I will state the facts once again. Make your own conclusions:
1. We have been able to record earth temperatures for about 120+ years.
2. Scientist says that the last 50 years are the warmest ever recorded. Remember only 120+ years total
3. The earth is according to some billions of years old
All this equals to that we do not know shit! Billions of years of no data or scientific study that is not conclusive.
Remember most of the scientist also predicted global cooling in the early 70's.. Again ='s we do not know shit!
Not all of the warming data comes from the last 120 years of temperature recordings. There are dozens of other means at the disposal of climate scientists for measuring climate, and indirectly determining temperature, that allow us to go back thousands (and in some cases millions) of years. So no, all of the warming data does not come from only the last 120 years. For example, there are vast fields of ice in the Antarctic and in glaciers around the world melting today that were frozen tens of thousands of years ago. That means, at least for those locations, temperatures are reaching highs that hadn't existed in thousands of years.
As many have said before, this is real. And unlike religion, where one can pick whatever set of fairytales they want to believe in and it makes no difference, it does makes difference whether you accept what the scientists are saying about manmade global warming.
John. Did you know that record cold in the Anarctic is officially blamed for the sudden acceleration in the loss of the Ozone layer?
Did you know that the historical record shows that CO2 increase lags temperature increase?
Did you know that NASA has stated that the recent sudden acceleration in the shrinking of the Arctic ice, is almost all caused by unusual wind patterns? (unusual - in that for how long have we been able to study wind patterns in the Arctic).
Did you know that when the mass increase of CO2 began just before the middle of the 1900's, world temperature fell for 40+ years?
Did you know that the Northwest passage had been open a number of times before and was navigated -- by old wood ships? Hint - that's why it is called the Northwest passage.
Did you know that most scientists understand that major global warming will mean the end of tornadoes? Think. You know why they form - and almost entirely only in the US. (Cold air mass hitting warm tropical air - upthrust. take away the cold air mass - no more tornadoes).
No one knows if hurricans are worse now than before in the last several cycles.
I survived one of the world's greatest hurricanes - looked right up into the eye. Hurricane Gilbert - 1988 Cozumel, MX.
Did you hear about all of the folks who died this past year from record cold in far away places?
About how hard it was for the sea life in an Arctic bay, that froze over for the first time in decades, this past year?
So much to learn -- no media to conduct the news.
Miamiman says, "1. We have been able to record earth temperatures for about 120+ years.
2. Scientist says that the last 50 years are the warmest ever recorded. Remember only 120+ years total
3. The earth is according to some billions of years old
All this equals to that we do not know shit! Billions of years of no data or scientific study that is not conclusive."
Let's say you were SanFranciscoMan, and we were discussing seismology. Would you want advocates of stronger building codes to be held to the same standard of proof as you demand of the climatologists here?
Wrong again, it's actually longer than 120 +
Try before our country was born..1776.
Believe it or not, ole Tom Jefferson reported to Congress on the weather...including the temp.
CONGRATULATIONS AL!
early
It's the left wing that should go nuts.
Just this week a British judge rules that An Inconvenient Truth is loaded with misreprestations. We find out that bio-fuels cost more energy and polute more. And Gore's # 1 suggestion (fluroscent bulbs) will contaminate our water with Mercury.
But more than that - Gore strongly supported rendition and torture.
http://prorev.com/gore.htm
FEBRUARY 2007
GORE USED TO LIKE RENDITIONS
[This from White House intelligence advisor Richard Clarke's book]
RICHARD CLARKE - Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government. . . The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."
Looks like GW Bush had all the support he needed from Al Gore.
Well now!
Fuji - I love the response. Sure beats most, around here.
Jackson,
First, Thank you!
We've been working and waiting since last December and a few of us were even working on
this earlier.
As I said in Feb. on "All Things Considered"
when Gore announces it will be a ...
Political Tsunami...
an even larger one now because virtually
everyone has written us off.
Like Gore though, I say we only have one planet.
Star Trek's Captain Kirk can't beam us up and
shuttle us to another planet because faster
than light travel isn't here yet and may
never be....
So, keep dreaming those dreams...maybe someday
we will break the speed barrier, but for now
we must clean up the planet!
Again, our thanks!
Sincerely,
P. Edward Murray
Northeast Regional Director # 2
Pennsylvania State Director
AlGore.org
The problem isn't global warming, it's global waring! Funny thing, the underlying cause is the same, the quest for energy. An almost seven billion people global village needs artificial energy to survive. The emerging other resource is fresh water (including sanitation and water borne disease). Southern Californians are being told that they must do with 30 % less water...next year! Water crises and Oil crises don't mix....like the Sudan / Darfur...This is an Assault on Reason. that we can just stand by in Denial! Now will Gore just accept the prize, or take the movement to the next level...as President re-elect?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
