Gore's Nobel Prize Shines a Harsh Light on Those Doing Nothing on Global Warming
Congratulations to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). After this, will it still be possible for the United States government to continue to do nothing to address the urgent crisis of global warming? The awarding of the Nobel Peace prize, one of the world's most prestigious honors, to Gore and the IPCC is going to make that ongoing denial of reality even more difficult, I think.
The Nobel committee's recognition of these heroes is validation to every person who has been working on this issue, and it shines a harsh light on anyone who is continuing to do nothing. The prize is recognition of decades of hard work, diligent research, ceaseless patience, dedication and passion by Gore and the leading international scientists who make up the IPCC. Now more than ever before, the leadership of the United States needs to catch up to its former vice president and commit our nation to action. The serious task of averting the worst impacts of global warming cannot be accomplished through voluntary measures and empty promises.
As Al Gore says, we face a planetary emergency that presents a "moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity," so we need to work together across all political divides and boundaries.
The question remains, when will President Bush recognize that?
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
Laurie David asked "After this, will it still be possible for the United States government to continue to do nothing to address the urgent crisis of global warming?"
We as a country are doing something, not enough but something. Keep in mind the Kyoto Treaty was highly biased and dysfunctional. The total population of China and India is about 1/3 of the earth's population but they are exempt. The smokestack industry and other carbon emitting activities in China and India are ignored by the Treaty. Is this the way to deal with climate change? Burden 2/3 of the world with reducing carbon emissions while the other 1/3 pumps more and more carbon into the atmosphere?
Laurie David wrote "The Nobel committee's recognition of these heroes is validation to every person who has been working on this issue, and it shines a harsh light on anyone who is continuing to do nothing."
Al Gore and the IPCC are not heroes. Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist.
It is accepted that the climate has changed and will continue to change. What hasn't been ascertained is how much of the change is directly attributable to human causes.
I hope Dubya will do something about climate change instead of leave this issue to the next president.
Al Gore will most likely go to Norway to attend the ceremony and receive his prize. Will he fly in commercial or private jets?
This is my sixth attempt at posting this reply - the first - as many - mysteriously disappeared. Apologies if they eventually shows up somewhere. It was about her ridiculous assertion in her previous post.
This is a perfect example of the Nietzsche's observation - that a great point suffers death by a poor argument. It's boring to watch this tennis match of mediocrity between a poorly written post and its equal in retort. Both floundering to find a point.
Laurie's premise appears to be - how can I end this article by saying how much I hate George Bush? Okay - we get it !! It's the 3 degrees of separation of all matter in the world. The final of course is hating George Bush. And, when this privileged blogging real estate is used so ineptly it's infuriating. And its as inane as that ridiculous exchange about Karl Rove and the brilliant clarity of his rightful employers. Rove ate David and Crow for lunch and then I read the school yard tale of how they successfully confronted him. Nonsense.
Nonsense, is the inept political ploy of using something so positive, as the Nobel Peace Award, and immediately throwing it in the mud to hammer detractors. Al Gore's accomplishment was about raising awareness to determining what exactly is the state of the World. The detractors will press on for a variety of reasons. And the cast of protagonists does (and will further) include those on the 'awareness' side that have positioned themselves either professionally or commercially to make personal fortunes in this very awareness. So why add to the fray ?? Why take this privileged position to be heard in order to reduce it to more schoolyard rhetoric in fulfillment of a mid-life crisis management?? I'm seriously doubting the potential of success of the Left if we continue to give such big voices to such diminutive minds.
You begin with congratulations for Gore and end with George Bush 'nah nahs', abusing this blog real estate to make your day - the same way the Right orthodoxy finalizes many of their theses with Bill Clinton ribald repartee.
Facts? Don't need em..
http://www
So one day a British judge is banning the distribution of Al Gore’s film on global warming from that nation’s schools and days later the former vice president is walking off with the Nobel Peace Prize. Well, sometimes you just can’t keep junk science down.
Yes, the same gaggle of politically correct judges who thought the ever-tedious Jimmy Carter, top ranked terrorist Yasser Arafat and the man who presided over the largest scam in United Nations history (that would be Kofi Annan and the oil-for-food debacle) were worthy of the peace prize have done it again.
Of course, in the co-winner of the prize, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Nobel panel did indeed find a worthy recipient which has done credible research in the field for decades.
Gore? Well, let’s just look at what British High Court Justice Michael Burton had to say in ruling against the distribution of “An Inconvenient Truth” to 3,500 schools because it violated school laws barring “political indoctrina
He called it “a political film” that while “broadly accurate” was truly flawed in its details.
The judge said the evidence was either inadequate to show, or was just not there, that global warming had caused: 1. Hurricane Katrina. 2. Evacuation of low-lying atolls in the Pacific. 3. Snow melting on Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa. 4. Drowning of polar bears in the Arctic. 5. Death of coral reefs. 6. A drying of Lake Chad.
Also: 7. A chart purporting to show a lock-step connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature over 650,000 years “does not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.” 8. A 20-foot rise in sea level, predicted for “the near future,” would take a millennium. And 9. A prediction that the Gulf Stream would shut down was “very unlikely” though it might slow.
The film was, in short, more propaganda than science - something which seemed to not at all bother the Nobel judges.
You've picked an excellent screen name
Thank you!
From many of these comments it appears our right wingers are terribly insulted and even devastated to find that Al Gore has just been declared one of the world's truly wise men. The Nobel Prize does not come out of a grab bag nor as a gift from a politicized Supreme Court. Gore has been vetted, his speeches, writings and movie reviewed by very qualified people and yet the fact that most of the world respects and applauds Gore's selection seems intolerable to the our rigid and well propagandized right. What an insult when it appears to them as if the whole world is out of step but them. The Gore distracters are wounded. They have my most compassionate sympathy.
In light of your comments could you please explain then the following.
Less than 25% of Americans believe that Al Gore knows what he is talking about with respect to global warming.
No less than 9 significant factual errors or lies have been documented and Gore does not dispute this.
Claiming that the Nobel committe hasn't become a political tool when it sees fit is plain ignorant. Yassir having won is all the proof of that needed. I'll leave Carter out of it.
The scientific community including those who support the theory of man-made global warming were fairly consistent in their "unease" (at best) about how Gore played loose with the facts.
Al Gore did the exact same thing with his first book Earth In The Balance. Just try and find an earth science professional who will stand behind that work of fiction (especially considering the number of predictions made in that book that have already been proven incorrect.
And yes Laurie you can censor this dissent, but it was respectful and sincere. When we say "ok no more questions" we abandon the foundation of science.
Hey humbug, what about the lies and distortions in the film? You forgot to mention those.
hey Laurie, when do you plan or correcting not only the silly graph in you little book that incorrectly shows CO2 as leading temperature rise?
Be sure to correct the text that accompanies that same graph too, while you're at it.
In order words, please stop lying.
http://sci
quote:
The actual temperature curve in the chart was switched with the actual CO2 curve. That is, the authors mislabeled the blue curve as temperature and mislabeled the red curve as CO2 concentration. The real data show that the red curve represents the temperature changes over geological time, followed (lagged) by changes in CO2 concentrations represented by the blue curve. Thus, children tracing the properly labeled curves from right to left (from past to present) can easily see the real, science-based relationship (particularly clear in the interval between 500,000 and 150,000 years ago).
The David-Gordon manipulation is critical because the central premise of the book argues that CO2 drives temperature, yet the ice core data clearly reveal temperature increases generally precede increasing CO2 by several hundred to a few thousand years. This fact may have been too inconvenient for David, who instead presented young readers with an astoundingly irresponsible falsehood. Parents and teachers of these children should be concerned.
Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth also got this wrong, saying: “The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more CO2, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun …”
endquote
Putting aside the hypocrisy of Gore and the Lib Left, a reference to which will likely not get this comment posted, how can you believe and preach that CO2 production is the doom and gloom be all end all and not also call for the US to immediately match or exceed the 80 per cent level that France obtains from CO2 free and air pollution free nuclear energy. A five year build up to those levels would not only meet the Kyoto protocals but beat then by between 60 and 75 per cent. Or are your type more into controlling behaviour than solving problems.
Nuclear: the natural resource is found in safe parts of the world like the US, Canada, and Australia, it produces CO2 and air pollution free energy, and Israel has just developed a means to recycle waste.
Put aside the single squares of toilet paper and actually do something that meets your demands while also allowing the world to industrialize.
1000 congrats to Mr. Gore! To put it simple: there is nobody out there who could do the job better than he. Jimmy Carter put it right. Al: listen to him, he is still the more experienced! Even from Germany he is and will be strongly supported:
www.algore
-- Simon
Hi Laurie - Wonderful entry! I have been a Gore fan so long and unlike a lot of people I didn't stay up all night to await the announcement, because when you know a sure thing what's the point? I congrat Mr. Gore on his award - it's about time he is recognized for his work not only to save our planet but the human race. If he wonders what to do now I have only one answer - enter the race! He has the support, the money, volunteers already throughout the country working on his behalf - get in the White House and start implementing the programs no one else seems to thing are important. Save the White House - Save the World! That's it in a nutshell. And there's no better time than now.
Check out this US Carbon Footprint Map, an interactive United States Carbon Footprint Map, illustrating Greenest States to Cities. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State & City energy consumptions, demographics and much more down to your local US City level...
http://www
Gore talks of a "...moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity..
Sounds to me like a faith based movement.
Took a few extra stupid pills this morning, did you?
PerryWhite has been posting here for some time. I can assure you he doesn't require any chemical assistance in his writings. That being said, a strong laxative might allow him to see things more clearly.
Thanks, that comment added SO much to the discussion. By the way, when you use the term "science," do you mean your personal interpretation of scientific research or the interpretation of scientists who have studied global phenomena for years? And, before you say "but there is disagreement, blah, blah, blah," what % of scientists with a background in the study of the global sciences actually disagree (I mean the ones who aren't working for oil companies) that climate change is here and is the result of human activity? Don't include bushie's top scientific adviser - he believes in global climate change and he has clearly stated that it is due to human activity.
Don't bother - pinheads are pinheads, and nothing will change. Yes, Mr. Pinhead may get on the net, but he will only go to Limbaugh or O'Reilly's website.
Thanks Laurie for Congratulating Al Gore. The man shouuld be recognized for his efforts on behalf of the world. On PBS last night they interviewed one of the scientists who shared teh award with Al Gore.
I thought it interesting that he said without Al Gore we would still be mired in useless debate. That scientists as a breed stay in their labs and offices and study and compile date and reports that no one read, governments ignore, and steps forward go too slowly. He said without the voice of Al Gore to put a face on this problmen, to bring it to a worlwide audience in a manner that took the data and made it understandable to the masses, was the critical part of Al's sharing the nomination. Just numbers that no one can relate to does nothing.
But he emphasized, that Al Gore has been interested and followed this subject, kept up with it for 30 years and his commitment to getting this topic at the top of World Agendas has been the pivotal role as their spokesman.
Now for those who say "it's a Peace Prize'. he said that Global warming will be the single worst disaster with loss of possible 120 million lives due to rising waters, temperatures, food sources drying up , and you can look at the African continent for Wars over water, oil, food which of course cause Wars as resources dwindle. acknowledge and start working on this problmen is critical or we will see more war, suffering and devastation much of which we can try to turn the tide by getting away from our 'oil' habits and other things.
I drive a Prius, thats my start but I am booking on a Democratsin this country and more forward thinking people around the world to come up with new technologies and our governments cannot lag, they must LEAD us.
That is why Al Gore is SHARING this award. Kudos for a group of winners working for everyones interest on this planet and not just talking heads trying to pretend we don't have problesm.
Albeit Bush will do nothing, but were "decades of hard work, diligent research, ceaseless patience, dedication and passion by Gore" before or after he invented the Internet?
See Steven Weber's Profile
...Are ya' kidding? Isn't it time for you to get another hackneyed, disproven misnomer to cling to in order to assuage your guilt about your complicity in the Bush highjacking of America? Oy...
Easy, big fella. Oy vey is right, or is it left? Either way, another polar ice cap just melted from all this hot air.
"Isn't it time for you to get another hackneyed, disproven misnomer to cling to in order to assuage your guilt about your complicity in the Bush highjacking of America? Oy..."
You've got that right about the "assuage your guilt" part. They need to keep parroting falsehoods to reassure themselves. If they actually believed the media was against them, they would have been apoplectic about Bush's demanding that all technicalities be ruled in his favor.
On Nov 1, 2000; there was a report in the NY Daily News (link to Coonsortium News, http://www
Only Gore won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College, so the Republicans immediately retooled their campaign to insist that the Electoral College was a better guide than real democracy. I think it left some of their heads spinning.
That's a wise guy remark, but OK. I think that all this useless criticism is wasted. I think that it is TOO LATE! to do anything to stop the inevitable. No little steps we take can affect the HUGE melt down that is already underway. A few generations from now they will look back in terror and wonder why we didn't do more.
I totally agree. Nothing is going to stop the polar meltdowns or refreeze the glaciers. How cold would it have to get? Even if we stopped adding greenhouse gasses right now the glaciers and poles will still be melting. We're in for it, and the only questions are when, how, how much, where, what? Perhaps the scientists' low-ball projections are wrong, and the high end consequences are themselves low...I think it's going to be abrupt and devastating. The storms will be more plentiful and worse. The valleys will flood. I'm sorry for my children and grandchildren.
I'll try again. FORGET IT, IT'S TOO LATE. Nothing we can do now can stop the melt down. Quit quibbling. Our descendents will ask in terror ."Why didn't they do more?
First, Gore "shared" the prize with a group of UN "environme
Second, the Nobel Peace Prize is "supposed" to be about weapon containment & world peace & the betterment of HUMAN existence. Gore's self-serving movie should have competed against the other science entrants, though so doing would have diminished their work as well.
I KNEW from the instant I read that Gore was a nominee that he would win; ditto for his Academy Award.
The only thing libs acomplish with this type of "staging" is to insult the past winners, such as Mother Teresa & Albert Schweitzer, and to cause future winners to be greeted with cynicism & indifference.
Well said
yeah, because after all, Creatonist-touting RepugliKKKans must know more about science than a worldwide panel of scientists from Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Cambridge, etc.
"Second, the Nobel Peace Prize is "supposed" to be about weapon containment & world peace & the betterment of HUMAN existence. Gore's self-serving movie should have competed against the other science entrants,"
Do you have a link to Alfred Nobel's will?
"The only thing libs acomplish with this type of "staging" is to insult the past winners, such as Mother Teresa & Albert Schweitzer,"
It's a wonder that Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer meet your test of political correctness. Guess you haven't been paying much attention to what they were saying.
"and to cause future winners to be greeted with cynicism & indifferen
That is assuming you're able to maintain your hegemony over the mainstream media; so that people don't see your whining for what it is.
Is global warming such a bad thing?
It seems that it's something people can cope with far better than global cooling.
The earth warms. The earth cools. If you believe that our carbon emissions have created this problem, then its hubris not to anticipate that any actions we may take to reverse global warming may have equally adverse consequences.
The problem here is that a scientific question has become politicized so that these issues are drowned by non-thinking emotions.
Global warming, as an issue, is a trojan horse whose purpose is to control the economy and redistribute wealth.
Yeah! The icecaps are intentionally melting in order to redistribute wealth. The socialistic glaciers are probably funded by George Soros.
It is not hubris to have faith in science. As belief systems go, science has a great track record. We didn't know about greenhouse gases or the ozone layer when we started burning fossil fuels in large quantities. Today we know better, and it's time that our politics reflects this progress.
That said, there is no scientific solution to climate change just as there is no military solution to global terrorism. These are both political problems first and foremost that require the expert guidance of our scientists and generals respectively.
The problem with the climate change debate isn't politicization, it's polarization. We should be doing politics. Instead we're elevating the useless "Fair and Balanced" frame where there are two opposite and equally valid theories on climate change. There is a third theory, the truth, which will never materialize from this kind of debate, and one of the two sides clearly wants it to stay that way.
The hubris is believing that everything will be okay if we ignore the evidence and refuse to protect the environment. We invaded a nation and killed thousands of civilians based on faulty intelligence and forged documents. But we are not prepared to rethink our energy policies based on irrefutable scientific evidence. This is about protecting our homeland.
Is everything that Al Gore or the IPCC say about climate change 100% accurate? No, and the skeptics have been helpful. But the majority of their claims have withstood this harsh scrutiny, and we need to do something about it. We need a political solution. We cannot afford a scientific stalemate over climate change like the military stalemate in Iraq. The GOP has to realize that sooner or later, politicians have to step up and solve problems.
Very well said. It is high time we demanded leadership on this issue from our 'leaders'. As things stand today however, I do not think that the Republicans are capable of accepting this task. Unfortunately neither are many Democrats. Al Gore would have fit the bill, had he not been denied the 2000 election. That I think is at the heart of the polarization that we see today. Many of us see this issue as critical, and we see the greatest obstacles to solving it embodied by the current administration and it's supporters. I would venture that there are probably even more than a few Republicans who would agree that our leadership needs to take this issue seriously at the highest levels. But in today's polarized political and social climate, that would be for a Republican like admiting that we need nationalized healthcare-a sacriligeous thing to say.
Oh, for Pete's sake! Global warming doesn't mean that we will all be living in a place like the sunny Cayman Islands. It means drought and crop failure. A warming ocean will impact the Gulf Stream and temperate European countries could end up looking more like Finland in a bad winter. Continued melting of glaciers will cause the oceans to rise. I hope to hell that you don't live in Manhattan--its subway system will be one of the first to flood.
The only way Al Gore can be effective is to run and become Prez of USA thereby becoming an example to other world leaders and keeping the momentum going otherwise he is in danger of becoming just another lecturing celebrity! Al you have to hold office to hold attention. I for one will lose all respect and faith if you're just Clinton's ambassador for climate change.. what a come down!
The Vice President has another good option besides running for office. He could position himself to be appointed to a future cabinet position e.g. Head of the EPA, or Sec. of the Interior, that would allow him to pursue Environmental issues without running for office.
In addition, he could join up in the movement to bring publicly financed elections to the U.S. That alone might accomplish more for the environment. We need to stop auctioning our public servants to the highest bidder(Exxon etc.).
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
