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
My disgreement with this article is the headline assertion that "Conservatives Prepare to go Nuts".
These people have clearly been clinically insane for quite some time.
This was Reagans plan when he shuttered the asylums. We got crazy people voting for Fascists.
Otherwise, I agree.
The right Right won't go off the deep end. Jimmy Carter won after he started the terrorism juggernaut , Yasser Arafat won while still committing attrocities and now Gore will win even thought the UK directing schools that show the science fiction that it is science fiction on at least 11 points.
Yeah. Terrorism is all Carter's fault.
Global warming isn't real (those damn Greenpeace freaks are melting the glaciers and the icesheets at the poles).
There's a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow.
It rains doughnuts on your planet.
Reagan was all for small govt and cutting spending.
Well no. Terrorism is not all Jimmy Carter's fault.
But then again, he did break diplomatic ties with Iran - and the Bush admin. is the 1st since to open the door (but only a little bit).
Carter did massivly continue the funding, and then provided US fighter jets, in E. Timor - 400,000 were killed.
Carter did give the nod of OK to Saddam to invade Iran. 1,000,000 died.
Carter did play the game that assisted/baited (with prior knowledge of) a full invasion of the USSR into Afghanistan, by among other actions beginning the funding to support the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan.
I suspect that one might argue that some of his actions were a call to many to join the ranks of the terrorists.
Did I miss a few?
Like the Clinton recession. Funny how I don't remember it that way.
(continued)
CO2 currently makes up about 0.0374% of the atmosphere, it is not the only heat absorbing gas and it is not the most potent (by volume or in total). CO2 is naturally absorbed by plants and acts as a fertilizer for them. An increase in CO2 will result in ever increasing plant life and faster CO2 reabsorption. Water vapor does much more to trap in heat from teh sun and is in much greater abundance.
The sun by far the main source of heat for the planet. Even a small change in solar output will have a big effect on Earth's temperature. It will also have a proportionate affect on the other planets. Right now the temperatures of all the planets and their moons are increasing, suggesting that solar output is increasing. It is possible that the current warming cycle we are in is caused largely by the sun.
These are just a few things for you all to think about before you claim that "the science is in" and it unanimously supports the "global warming is man made and a disaster which we have to stop" possition.
Amen! But you can't tell them anything that makes sense anymore. They have bought this man made global warming hoax, hook, line and sinker!
Common sense? Differing data and opinions? Hell no! The left has this thing all figured out and guess what, it is that damn mankind thing that is to blame! Go figure!
Combustion is ecologically unsound. Get it. Saying that the current warming cycle could be caused by the sun is like saying the current economic cycle could be casued by increased productivity. Saying CO2 is a small percentage of our atmosphere is like saying insulin is a small percentage of our chemical makeup, but by no means the most potent or important.
Kevinabt,
Apparently, you did not receive the memo:)
Right now, The Sunspot Cycle is at
Solar Minimum which means little or no Sunspots
and few Solar Flares and associated Coronal Mass Ejections which, when they occur, increases the Solar Irradiance.
So, at the moment in the cycle...
The Sun's output is less than usual not more as
at the time of Solar Maximum.
Sadly, you are woefully misinformed.
If right now it is at the minimum then maybe we can expect to see temperature declines, has it been at the minimum for the last 30 years? The last 30 years is when the earth's temperature has been increasing.
The sun can increase radiance and heat output without producing sun spots. Having fewer sun spots at the moment does not mean that the sun is necessarily causing less heat.
Thank you, kevinabt.
I am a Chemical Engineer and have been a Registered Professional Engineer since 1979.
Are we melting the polar ice caps and high alpine glaciers ? Obviously, yes.
The question is: causation.
The thermodynamic properties of the gases (heat transfer , heat capacitance, etc.) is next to nothing. Water, on the other hand, has a significant heat capacitance (heat storage) capability, so the oceans power our global weather systems, hurricanes, El Nino, and coastal fogs. Miniscule variations of CO2 concentration causing global warming ? Bunkum.
Although his geophysical publishings are quite controversial, please inspect the websites of Dr. J. Marvin Herndon --->> www.unders
It makes whopping more sense that the recently observed global warming is coming from INSIDE the Earth. We know so much more about the skies and what we can see overhead. We are still infants with our knowldege of what exists in our oceans and inside our Earth.
Fortunately, the Russians still have an interest in Basic Science ( as opposed to the Anti-Intellectual, Homer Simpson (FOX) & Brittney Spears (FOX) - obsessed, United States of America). The Russian observations at Baksan will take about two (2) years to gather enough data to indicate if we have an active anti-neutrino emission signature in the predicted GeV energy range.
It is totally inaccurate that you lump all the people who do not believe that the warming of the global is primarily human caused and of dire consequences. I, for one, do not buy into this theory and I have many reasons for doing so. I would not consider myself a 'right winger' and neither would anyone who knows me.
Here are a few reasons why many people do not think that global warming is caused by man or that it is a serious risk to the viability of this planet as a life support system.
Evidence does NOT suggest that CO2 is the prime cause of warming. CO2 levels have been increasing steadily for the last 150 years and yet temperatures rose and fell during that time, they didn't only go up. 1940-1970 was a cooling period, you may remember some scientists warning of a global ice age during that time. In past times CO2 levels increased after warming, suggesting that something about increased temperatures caused more CO2 to enter the atmosphere, not the other way around.
Global temperatures are much lower now than they were during the 1100-1400 warm period. During that time human civilization did very well, agriculture did not collapse. After that time the temperature went down naturally and humans addapted again successfully.
A warmer globe means longer growing seasons and less heating requirements in the winter. Both good things for human civilizations that are in temperate zones, which is a very large portion of them.
Rising water sea levels do NOT destroy our society, they may flood low lying coastal structures but they won't touch anything else. Anything built by humans is not meant to last more than 100 years or so anyways, our descendants can just rebuild at a higher elevation if need be. This will not be a long term loss for civilization as a whole.
(continued)
CO2 currently makes up about 0.0374% of the atmosphere, it is not the only heat absorbing gas and it is not the most potent (by volume or in total). CO2 is naturally absorbed by plants and acts as a fertilizer for them. An increase in CO2 will result in ever increasing plant life and faster CO2 reabsorption. Water vapor does much more to trap in heat from teh sun and is in much greater abundance.
The sun by far the main source of heat for the planet. Even a small change in solar output will have a big effect on Earth's temperature. It will also have a proportionate affect on the other planets. Right now the temperatures of all the planets and their moons are increasing, suggesting that solar output is increasing. It is possible that the current warming cycle we are in is caused largely by the sun.
These are just a few things for you all to think about before you claim that "the science is in" and it unanimously supports the "global warming is man made and a disaster which we have to stop" possition.
To much of the radical right, particularly the religious element, the faster the earth is destroyed, the faster the second coming of Jesus, the Rapture and Armageddon will occur. They are not scared of the end of the world, they actively welcome it. That is what is truly frightening. Conservatives as a whole may not be "inherently stupid", but it's difficult to avoid classifying those who welcome the destuction of the world as anything less than crazy.
I completely disagree. Conservatives are inherently stupid and they prove it day after day.
How does warming the earth destroy the earth?
Overd0g
You got about two hours? Go rent "An Inconvenient Truth".
"Gore's Academy award winning, fact-filled documentary An Inconvenient Truth made clear that earth's atmosphere is getting hotter," This is the biggest lie ever! Why don't you tell that England and let them tell you what they think. They just debunked ELEVEN "facts" in Gore's propaganda, but those on the left just ignore that. Its astounding! But the right are the ones that put their heads in the sand...yea
"The potential meaning of such melting is obvious, too." And right here, YOU even admit that it is a potential, not a fact and not a definite.
Who debunked eleven facts in "An Inconvient Truth" and where is your proof of this?
BTW, don't send me a link to some quasi scientist who just happen to be the same people who claimed tobacco was not addictive and doesn't cause cancer because that isn't going to work.
Didn't you read Wilson33's post? 'England' debunked Gore's facts.
Have you even checked out any of the headlines today? It is on just about every news site out there today. READ!
I'm gonna try to answer your question w/out joining the name calling and whatnot.
http://new
Just read it and make up your mind. It's a conservative site, but if you read it carefully, it's pretty much easy to make up your mind. No, I'm not a antiInconvenient Truth. Trust me. Just read the article and tell me what you think. I'll get back to dialogue..
I tried to post this afternoon, but it didn't go through. This is what the British government just ruled regarding the showing of AIT in schools:
http://new
"In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children."
What, no links?
I think you just made the point perfectly clear that the right-wingnuts are, in fact, inherently stupid. Perhaps if you read documents instead of listening to the idiots on FoxNoNewChannel you would be much smarter. Do you sheep that follow the words of Hannity like they are golden manna from heaven actually think for yourselves, ever??
Okay, I'll give you this one. Maybe there is some contention about the effects of global warming. Maybe environmentalists are being alarmist. It is science and the opinions are evolving. But here is something you can't deny (unless ofcourse you are just stupid)
1)Carbon emissions are bad for human health.
2)We are not looking at a future where there is less carbon, but more.
What's your solution? Do you have one?
Now if you are truly stupid then do me an experiment and see if you can prove me wrong. Drive your car into your garage and shut it. Now roll your car windows down and breath deeply.
This ridiculous line in the sand that you think is a point is noting but a distraction. Unless, of course, you can emerge from that car after 20 minutes of breathing your car exhuast.
It depends on the amount dumbass. Have you ever smoked a cigarette? Did you die from the carbon dioxide that was in it?
No one is saying that pollution and clean air isn't a problem. No one is saying that we should just trash the planet, etc.
All some are saying is that this is just a bunch of alarmism, much like most catastrophic predictions are, and there is no need to put heavy financial burdens, heavy regulations on our lives.
But I could just be stupid...
My solution is to re-engineer human genetics so we can breath carbon dioxide.
Its the amount dumbass, have you ever smoked a cigarette? Did you die from the carbon emissions? Your car/garage analogy was pretty weak.
"Carbon emissions are bad for human health" and yet we all emit carbon dioxide when we breath. I know that's not what you meant but just though I'd point that out.
You have to have a very high concentration of CO2 in order to notice it when you breath it in, much higher than is in the atmosphere. I don't think anyone is suggesting that breathing in CO2 hurts people, what is being suggested is that the CO2 is insulating the planet causing temperatures to increase.
Next, carbon is a good think. It is the building block of earth type life forms, we are all carbon based life forms. CO2 in the air is good for plants, they absorb it and use it to create solid compounds. More CO2 in the air means more plant matter and a greener planet, is that a good thing?
Your car does not only produce CO2, it has a lot of other very nasty by-products. A lot of which are not good for our environment. It is not correct to jump to the conclusion that those bad things are also causing the entire planet to heat up.
Wilson 33:
You're just incorrect in continuing to spread the myth about the British Court and "11 lies."
Here are the facts:
A lawsuit was filed by a global warming-denying father who wanted the film banned from public schools. There are no "11 lies" found by a British Court. In a blow to the father, the Judge ruled that the film can 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 government has rewritten the teacher's study guide to reflect that some factual aspects in the film are not 100% universally accepted. No big deal because lots of scientifically sound views are not yet 100% accepted, even by all scientists. The process of science is always ongoing.
That's it, whole story. So why are conservatives foaming about the total myth of the British Court finding 11 lies?
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; 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 conservative web outlets and was falsely transformed into the Judge's ruling, but it was just press release spin - from a global warming denying fringe group. See on the link below that the "11 lies" are not from the Court! Rightwing bloggers are quite gullible, it seems.
To repeat: Film continues, teachers must identify its political nature, and any issues surrounding facts in the film will be addressed in the classroom.
http://prn
TimmySlagle comments: "Giving up Energy and Capitalism, in the name of the environment, is dangerous and foolhardy.
There won't be anybody around to engage in capitalism if the environment can't sustain the human race. That's why it's imperative that the 21st century becomes the green century, with technologies that reverse the global warming trends of the past. Pretty basic stuff, actually.
China is still a dictatorship, albeit "capitalist", much in the same way that our own far-right idealogues would love to turn us into a "capitalist" dictatorship. But China's "fortunes" will be reversed once again with an environmental collapse. Worth it? The argument is, why not renewable energy and sustainable economic policy, instead of the race to the bottom? Or does capitalism equate to ignorance and self-destruction?
The whole Nobel Prize thing is as meaningful and interesting to the vast American public as the local Marigold Contest in Peoria is.
It's a big Ho-hum.
My "vast American public" believes differently from yours. I am betting that Mr. Gore will win the Nobel prize--there is no American who deserves it more.
Imagine my big Cheshire Cat grin when Mr Gore wins the prize this Friday and thereby drive many right-wingers nuts. :-D
Fact is, most Americans are not as blindingly partisan as you are and would be happy to see an American win a Nobel prize.
Perhaps some would see something as important as the Nobel prize as "Ho-Hum", but those are probably the same people who don't like to read, don't watch the news and list "clearing brush" as one of their favorite hobbies.
I can say with great certainty that here in Louisiana most are not only blindly partisan, they are also insanely hateful of Al Gore. They will go nuts if Gore wins the Peace Prize. I hope he does win.
Interesting to bring the Space Shuttle up as an analogy. Especially, since the foam wouldn't have broken off in the first place, if NASA hadn't switched to a new CFC-free formula, to protect the Ozone layer.
The law of unintended consequences can be cruel. When NASA scientists made the decision to switch, none of them predicted the spectacular fireball their environmental concerns caused.
20 years ago, children were literally starving to death in China. Energy and Capitalism has reversed their fortunes. Giving up Energy and Capitalism, in the name of the environment, is dangerous aqnd foolhardy.
Only a closed-minded coward can't see that we can be environmentally responsible AND still grow the economy and prosper as far as capitalism. Frankly, only an IDIOT wouldn't be able to see that if we don't protect and conserve the environment, it won't matter how many stocks you own when there's no more water to drink and we can't grow food anymore because the soil's been stripped.
There must be a balance in all things. Why can't you see that? Even simple animals know you don't shit where you eat. Why can't you grasp this concept?
Timmy used facts to form an argument. You called him names. I guess you win.
My guinea pig doesn't know that.
Ah, but intelligent application of energy and capitalism may let them all live to see their grandchildren in a better world than they can imagine today.
You do not know that the foam would have not broken off in the first place if they had not switched to CFC-free formula. That is a nonsequitor. WHat you state as fact is in fact YOUR premise made to build YOUR case. And your speaking of unintended consequences as cruel should include fossil fuel use first, then maybe 3,3002th later you can speak of the shuttle. Combustion is ecologically unsound. Get it.
Seawolfe,
The simple and very sad fact was that they could have been saved. They had more than enough oxygen and food for about 7 days.
There was another shuttle, already stacked in
the V.A.B., and NASA screwed up.
At any rate, I wouldn't be so bold to argue with a veteran reporter like Mr. Barbee.
It shows you know little of this.
Sometimes it's better to just sit and be quiet.
On China :
China is doing well at America's expense, to say otherwise is a lie. I live in Michigan, once a manufacturing giant, now there are not any jobs. Why? Because we shipped all our work to China, and you think that's a good thing. Now the kids in China are no longer starving at the rate they used to, but we are poising our kids with their lead tainted products. This is not a solution to anybodies problems.
One doesn't have to abolish capitalism in order to protect the environment, in fact new jobs and businesses will be created if we actually make the big push to "go green". It could be like the new industrial revolution, only this time the jobs and products would be created to protect the environment rather than destroy it.
But no, your type would rather buy oil from terrorist and line the pockets of cronies who could care less about what happens to you, me, or the future our children will live in.
20 years ago, Native American children were living in poverty and squalor. Now, the tribes around San Diego are living high on the hog, thanks to their casino profits.
It wasn't enough. They had to put in resort hotels and golf courses, in a region that's a desert.
Barona is the first tribe to have managed to drain an entire aquifer, water that won't be replaced for years. Their solution? Run a pipeline from a local reservoir, while all their neighbors have to truck in their water.
Watch the land slowly die, exanguinated by human greed and carelessness. We thought the Indians had a respect for mother nature. But that was before $$$ came into the picture. Suddenly, it's Grab All and Go, just like the white man. This is the world in microcosm.
So Chinese kids were starving 20 years ago. I know. My mom exhorted me to eat my broccoli by invoking them. Twenty years from now, they'll be choking on their own waste, dying of strange cancers and other environmen
This prize was worthless when Hilter and Stalin were nominated and Yasser Arafat won it.
Sometimes I think they give the prize to someone in order to nudge them down the road of peace. It shines a light on their behavior, with the hope that the peer pressure will have a positive impact. It doesn't always work.
But it's like the old ethical test designed to be asked when one is facing an ethical dilemma, "In what way is love (brotherly love-agape) best served?"
Will it be the action that most satisfies our bloodlust? Or is it seeing past our anger to do the unpalatable thing that will ultimately bring about the best result for all?
In the Republican wingnut world there would be no Peace Prizes. In fact there would be no art, no music, no science except for that which advanced warfare and population control. There would be constant fear, interspersed with desperate forays into escapism and immediate gratification (as relief from the fear), in a world driven by constant war. Come to think of it, we're not too far from that now.
Any professor can nominate anyone for the prize. It is very open. That adds to the credibility of the award.
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.[6
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.
.
a cheat on a test may also get an "A"..
does that make the "A" that you get worthless.
you buy a nice home then hear on the news that someone else's home falls apart..
does that make your home worthless.
.
They finally discovered the real reason for Rush Limbaugh's Oxycontin addiction. It was Bill Clinton.
Then how come I never got mine for putting up with DUHbya?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
