What's new

It's official: Al Gore and the IPCC win the Nobel Peace Prize

Good point. Excatly what segregationists said when MLK won the award.

But see, that would be the opinion of the segregationists. My point was that the committee itself stated that their awarding the prize was meant as a political statement to the Bush administration.
In 2002, after the award was given to Carter, the committee chairman, Gunnar Berge, stated that the award "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken."
 
So, year to year, decade to decade, century to century, there has been exactly the same amont of wars? There have been no periods of relative peace or strife?

No, that is not what I said. But there were certainly wars and strife over shifting populations and demands upon resources before the carbon dioxide levels began rising. It also occurred when the planet was cooling. My point was not to debate the merits of global warming as a reality, but to point out that that particular article, if indeed it was providing justification for the relevance of the award going to Gore and the IPCC, did not give a convincing one. There have been periods of war and there have been periods of peace throughout history. But I have yet to see any substantive report definitively linking those to changes in climate.
Actually, when you look at it, there have been less wars in the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century than in other periods in our past. Certainly it has not been one of the most violent eras. Wars have been for shorter durations. No longer do we have "100 years wars," and "30 years wars."
But even if you could meet all the demands of the Kyoto treaty and the recommendations of the IPCC, reduce emissions, and reverse, or at least hault, global warming, I believe you will still see clashes between people where they meet up with one another, conflicts over resources, and wars. Reaching some scientifically-agreed upon ideal global temperature mean is not going to get all the people on this earth to come together and sing Kumbayah.
 
Dr. Mike, I approve of your avatar. Social D FTW.

As I mentioned in another thread, many other bands and CDs in my collection have come and gone, especially now that I rely heavily on my Sirius satellite radio, but Social D will always remain!
Saw them in concert, only once, and absolutely was in heaven. Oh, to be younger again.
 
S

sullivanpm

This just in Gore is now considered the front runner for the Heisman Trophy.


That is all, Carry on:smile:
 
But see, that would be the opinion of the segregationists. My point was that the committee itself stated that their awarding the prize was meant as a political statement to the Bush administration.
In 2002, after the award was given to Carter, the committee chairman, Gunnar Berge, stated that the award "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken."

So when MLK was given his award the committee that gave it to him was not being political? They intended no criticism of Jim Crow and expected that the award would be interpreted as such?
 
All I'll say is that it's an awful shame that so many otherwise rational people's take on the Global Warming issue is so unfairly clouded by their political opinions against one man.
 
No, that is not what I said. But there were certainly wars and strife over shifting populations and demands upon resources before the carbon dioxide levels began rising. It also occurred when the planet was cooling. My point was not to debate the merits of global warming as a reality, but to point out that that particular article, if indeed it was providing justification for the relevance of the award going to Gore and the IPCC, did not give a convincing one. There have been periods of war and there have been periods of peace throughout history. But I have yet to see any substantive report definitively linking those to changes in climate.
Actually, when you look at it, there have been less wars in the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century than in other periods in our past. Certainly it has not been one of the most violent eras. Wars have been for shorter durations. No longer do we have "100 years wars," and "30 years wars."
But even if you could meet all the demands of the Kyoto treaty and the recommendations of the IPCC, reduce emissions, and reverse, or at least hault, global warming, I believe you will still see clashes between people where they meet up with one another, conflicts over resources, and wars. Reaching some scientifically-agreed upon ideal global temperature mean is not going to get all the people on this earth to come together and sing Kumbayah.

We can agree that people have fought wars over resources right? Can we also agree that they might fight over those resources that are scarce? Can we also agree that the resources that are scarce (relative to demand) vary in time? For instance...rubber trees (and the specific land that supports their growth) ... not very important before the 19th century. After the need for insulation for undersea telegraph wires, Europeans cared a lot about rubber trees--and made owning them a part of the imperial project. Once rubber could be made from petroleum, it wasn't much of an issue.

It seems to me the question is not whether there is a linear conenction between the average daily temperature of the earth and wars, but whether or not a change in the that temperature might (could, will?) lead to increased violent conflict over certain resources. For instance, if Bangledesh ends up underwater, perhaps there will conflict over land in that part of world. Or, if the desertification of China continues apace, perhaps China's 1+ billion people might decide they want / require the water resources of their neighbors, etc. Maybe that will lead to wars. Of course, maybe the decrease in rainfall that China has been experiencing has nothing to do with climate issues. Could be.

And, of course, this not to deny that people have long fought wars over things that are not directly conencted to temperature. Since we have another Elizabeth movie opening today, let's not forget the centuries of Catholic/Protestant wars.
 
It's gone and become a price for "PC-cozy things" not peace, Nobel would roundhouse *****-slap the committee were he alive today.
 
So when MLK was given his award the committee that gave it to him was not being political? They intended no criticism of Jim Crow and expected that the award would be interpreted as such?

I would definitely argue that point. Did it have political implications? Yes. But it transcended politics. Recognizing someone's achievements in promoting equal rights to a population that has been prejudiced against and marginalized based on their skin color transcends politics. I don't object to there being political implications in the process. But when it detracts from the true purpose of the prize, I think it is petty. I don't think the committee sat around and said, "ooh, you know what? We should give it to that King guy over there in the U.S., because I think that will really **** off those segregationists."
I think this all cheapens the process. Granting a prize to Carter meant as a slap in the face to the Bush administration and to Gore for narrating a film that has since been shown to have incorrect data, and may only hypothetically prevent potential conflicts in the world cheapens the value of the symbol of granting this prize to people like Martin Luther King, Jr. To think that he and Arafat are now included in the same list is not a very comforting thought. One promoted equal rights for his people by peaceful means. One sought greater status for his people by advocating genocide and sponsoring terrorism.
 
We can agree that people have fought wars over resources right? Can we also agree that they might fight over those resources that are scarce? Can we also agree that the resources that are scarce (relative to demand) vary in time? For instance...rubber trees (and the specific land that supports their growth) ... not very important before the 19th century. After the need for insulation for undersea telegraph wires, Europeans cared a lot about rubber trees--and made owning them a part of the imperial project. Once rubber could be made from petroleum, it wasn't much of an issue.

It seems to me the question is not whether there is a linear conenction between the average daily temperature of the earth and wars, but whether or not a change in the that temperature might (could, will?) lead to increased violent conflict over certain resources. For instance, if Bangledesh ends up underwater, perhaps there will conflict over land in that part of world. Or, if the desertification of China continues apace, perhaps China's 1+ billion people might decide they want / require the water resources of their neighbors, etc. Maybe that will lead to wars. Of course, maybe the decrease in rainfall that China has been experiencing has nothing to do with climate issues. Could be.

And, of course, this not to deny that people have long fought wars over things that are not directly conencted to temperature. Since we have another Elizabeth movie opening today, let's not forget the centuries of Catholic/Protestant wars.

But this is exactly why this award does not carry the importance that the other Nobel prizes do. To win the award in science or economics, your discovery has to be shown to actually have a real impact. The amazing thing about those who receive this prize so many years later in their respective fields is not how long it took to award them, but that their findings were so significant that they were still worthy of such an award so many years later.
Even King's efforts were shown to have an important impact when he received his award.
But they are awarding this to Gore based on what they think what might happen. It hasn't even been tested. But they want to put their stamp as being "most caring organization in the world on . . ." to this topic, so they pick Gore. Not because it is the right choice, but because it was the most PC, most politically expedient choice. In 2002, Carter was the most politically expedient choice, because it provided them a way to slap the Bush administration in the face and say, "why can't you be more like Carter?" Never mind the fact that Carter was instrumental in bringing about the mess that is modern day Iran. Never mind the fact that Carter was instrumental in brokering that lovely deal with North Korea that gave them nuclear technology in exchange fore what?
If Gore's assertions are in fact true, let them play out. Wait a while. If scientists can wait 20 years to see the ultimate recognition for their accomplishments, surely Gore can wait a little while. After all, if his claims are true, we shouldn't even have to wait a whole 20 years to at least begin to see proof.
 
It seems to me the question is not whether there is a linear conenction between the average daily temperature of the earth and wars, but whether or not a change in the that temperature might (could, will?) lead to increased violent conflict over certain resources. For instance, if Bangledesh ends up underwater, perhaps there will conflict over land in that part of world. Or, if the desertification of China continues apace, perhaps China's 1+ billion people might decide they want / require the water resources of their neighbors, etc. Maybe that will lead to wars. Of course, maybe the decrease in rainfall that China has been experiencing has nothing to do with climate issues. Could be.

And, of course, this not to deny that people have long fought wars over things that are not directly conencted to temperature. Since we have another Elizabeth movie opening today, let's not forget the centuries of Catholic/Protestant wars.

And here, I don't believe that you could ever prove this. What if the earth continues to warm and we actually see a decrease in conflicts, because mankind simply gets better at negotiating and working out their problems without war and conflict. Would you then accept the conclusion that global warming actually promotes world peace? No. Because you can't directly connect the two. Mankind is not simplistically governed by only one concern at a time. Hitler rationalized his conquest of Europe for multiple reasons, only one of which regarded resources. He also killed people simply because he hated them.
There have also been times when mankind has managed to handle limited resources without war. England, for example, is a geographically very small country, and yet one of the "strongest" in the world. When they become low in a resource, they don't launch a new war, rather they purchase what they need.
Yes, living space will be an issue. But when has it not? If we continue to see wars over people striving to take land from others even if we see global cooling and an increase in coastlines and habitable land, what will your conclusion be then?
And what if global warming doesn't actually result in a net loss in habitable land? What if global warming opens up some areas to the human population that were previously inhospitable? Say Siberia, or Greenland. There are just too many factors that cannot be controlled to make such a sweeping conclusion. This is nothing more than wishful thinking.
This is simply not an issue that falls within the realm of a "Peace" prize.
 
And here, I don't believe that you could ever prove this. What if the earth continues to warm and we actually see a decrease in conflicts, because mankind simply gets better at negotiating and working out their problems without war and conflict. Would you then accept the conclusion that global warming actually promotes world peace? No. Because you can't directly connect the two. Mankind is not simplistically governed by only one concern at a time. Hitler rationalized his conquest of Europe for multiple reasons, only one of which regarded resources. He also killed people simply because he hated them.
There have also been times when mankind has managed to handle limited resources without war. England, for example, is a geographically very small country, and yet one of the "strongest" in the world. When they become low in a resource, they don't launch a new war, rather they purchase what they need.
Yes, living space will be an issue. But when has it not? If we continue to see wars over people striving to take land from others even if we see global cooling and an increase in coastlines and habitable land, what will your conclusion be then?
And what if global warming doesn't actually result in a net loss in habitable land? What if global warming opens up some areas to the human population that were previously inhospitable? Say Siberia, or Greenland. There are just too many factors that cannot be controlled to make such a sweeping conclusion. This is nothing more than wishful thinking.
This is simply not an issue that falls within the realm of a "Peace" prize.

I absolutely agree. It is not so simple to make predictions about the future. And, I agree that it is quite possible that even while the Earth warms wars could decrease. Greenland will certainly be more livable. (Of course the Russians just made a claim to the resources under the now melted ice by dropping a flag on the sea floor).
 
I Never mind the fact that Carter was instrumental in brokering that lovely deal with North Korea that gave them nuclear technology in exchange fore what?

The deal that Carter brokered invovled giving N Korea technology that would not allow for proliferation or the construction of weapons. Let's not forget that a reactor and a bomb are not at all the same thing.

After GWB arrived and backed out of this deal, N Korea returned to earlier practice of producing weapons grade plutonium--thus leading to the their bomb.

It is only just about now that the State dept has returned to essentially the same treaty that Carter helped broker -- (after, of course, seeing that such neocon "strategic" minds as Cheney and Bolton had not worked out so well).
 
Meteorologists can't accurately predict the weather anymore than three days in advance. And they often get that wrong!. What makes anyone think that they can predict a two or three percent rise in average global temperatures over the next one hundred to two hundred years and then state with certainty that it is being caused by XY and Z and furthermore point to man as the cause of XY and X? The earth goes through cooling and warming periods some of which have been short lived and mild, others are longer in duration and more extreme, all caused by a natural combination of cyclical solar output as well as cycles due entirely to earth forces. AL Gore, PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY A GLACIER ONCE EXTENDED DOWN TO THE SOUTHERN HALF OF MY HOME STATE OF ILLINOIS LONG BEFORE MAN WAS HERE!!!!!!

global warming caused by man. My aching arse! It is nothing more than a politically motivated boogieman!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You know, if this is man made global warming, it should negate the next ice age that should be coming up (it supposedly happens every 10,000 years or so and we are now due). I bet people can grow crops in warm weather but not in the ice. We might actually be saving ourselves by heating the earth.
 
I don't know if the earth is going to warm as they predict, and I don't know if the emissions that mankind produces is going to significantly impact it. I am willing to listen to the evidence. But what hurts his cause is how much anybody who disagrees with him is demonized.
Regardless of whether it causes global warming, and if so, what should our reaction be, I think that we should be wise stewards of the earth. Waste in any form is bad, even if it doesn't cause such far-reaching consequences as destroying our earth. Would I like to see less cars belching out that black smoke when I'm stuck behind them? Absolutely. Would I like a car that gets 150 mpg? As long as it can safely carry me an my family from point A to point B, you bet.
True, meteorologists cannot accurately predict the short term weather, but they can detect trends. Why do you think we have a "hurricane season?" There will always be exceptions, but certain trends hold. But one of the biggest problems I see is the models that they use to make their predictions of global warming. No one model takes into account every factor that influences the climate, if for no other reason than scientists do not fully grasp what all affects the climate, and those they know of they still don't fully comprehend their total impact. I read a recent report where a new model was tested to see whether it could have accurately predicted changes in temperature over the last 2 decades. It did a decent, but not excellent job. Furthermore, the other models that it was compared to, while being fairly good at predicting when temperature might be above the mean temperature, totally failed in predicting when temperatures actually fell below the mean. A model is only as good as the person who designs it.
Additionally, it recently was discovered that the data that Al Gore used in his movie stating that the hottest day in U.S. history was 1998 was false, due to an error in the calculations used by NASA. Once the error was corrected, it turned out that in fact 1934 was the hottest. So the data on global warming is not infallible, and those who question it, sometimes correctly, should not be labeled deniers.
 
The deal that Carter brokered invovled giving N Korea technology that would not allow for proliferation or the construction of weapons. Let's not forget that a reactor and a bomb are not at all the same thing.

After GWB arrived and backed out of this deal, N Korea returned to earlier practice of producing weapons grade plutonium--thus leading to the their bomb.

It is only just about now that the State dept has returned to essentially the same treaty that Carter helped broker -- (after, of course, seeing that such neocon "strategic" minds as Cheney and Bolton had not worked out so well).

That might all be true if it weren't for the fact that North Korea never actually stopped developing nuclear weapons, as they admitted, and the deal that Carter helped broker propped them up with necessary resources to keep them alive, resources like energy from nuclear reactors and food.
North Korea has lied through its teeth every chance it has had. What in their entire history makes you believe that they, in good faith, halted their weapons development program for a short interval, and then picked it up again because Bush hurt their feelings? Only Carter, Bill Richardson, and Bill Clinton are able to say that North Korea halted their nuclear program with a straight face.
 
I have tons of respect for the other Nobel prizes, but not for the prize given to Kissinger, and later, Kim Dae Jung.
 
Top Bottom