TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Gore and IPCC share Nobel Peace Prize
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Gore and IPCC share Nobel Peace Prize

Cue the wingers going batshit again:

quote:

Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize Ex-VP, intergovernmental body jointly honored for global warming work MSNBC staff and news service reports Updated: 7:57 a.m. CT Oct 12, 2007 OSLO, Norway - Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and lay the foundations for counteracting it. "I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize," Gore said in a statement. "We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity." Gore won an Academy Award this year for his film "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary on global warming, and had been widely expected to win the prize. "His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change," the citation said. "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted." It cited Gore's awareness at an early stage "of the climatic challenges the world is facing." Panel's two decades The committee also cited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for two decades of scientific reports that have "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming." The IPCC groups 2,500 researchers from more than 130 nations and issued reports this year blaming human activities for climate changes ranging from more heat waves to floods. It was set up in 1988 by the United Nations to help guide governments. Climate change has moved high on the international agenda this year. The U.N. climate panel has been releasing reports, talks on a replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate are set to resume and on Europe's northern fringe, where the awards committee works, there is growing concern about the melting Arctic. The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states." Gore said he would donate his share of the $1.5 million that accompanies the prize to the non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection. Ole Danbolt Mjoes, chairman of the prize committee, said the award should not be seen as singling out the Bush administration for criticism. "A peace prize is never a criticism of anything," he said. "A peace prize is a positive message and support to all those champions of peace in the world." President Bush abandoned the Kyoto Protocol because he said it would harm the U.S. economy and because it did not require immediate cuts by countries like China and India. The treaty aimed to put the biggest burden on the richest nations that contributed the most carbon emissions. The U.S. Senate voted against mandatory carbon reductions before the Kyoto negotiations were completed. The treaty was never presented to the Senate for ratification by the Clinton administration. �Al Gore has fought the environment battle even as vice president,� Mjoes said. �Many did not listen ... but he carried on.� The White House said the prize was not seen as increasing pressure on the administration or showing that President Bush�s approach missed the mark. �Of course he�s happy for Vice President Gore,� White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. �He�s happy for the international panel on climate change scientists who also shared the peace prize. Obviously it�s an important recognition.� Fratto said Bush has no plans to call Gore. Fans and foes Reaction to the award was immediate. "He's like the proverbial nut that grew into a giant oak by standing his ground," Patrick Michaels, a scholar with the free market Cato Institute, said in a statement. "We can only hope that he can parlay his prize into a run for the U. S. presidency, where he will be unable to hide from debate on his extreme and one-sided view of global warming." British bookmakers once put 100-to-1 odds on Gore winning an Oscar, becoming a Nobel laureate and becoming president. He has now accomplished two of the three, and on Friday bookies slashed the odds to 8/1 from 10/1. Gore, 59, has been coy, saying repeatedly he�s not running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, without ever closing that door completely. FoxNews.com columnist Steve Milloy alleged that Gore "plays fast and loose with the facts to advance his personal agenda." British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called Gore " inspirational in focusing attention across the globe on this key issue." Julia Marton-Lef�vre, head of the World Conservation Union, said that, "as Mr. Gore and the IPCC have clearly demonstrated, we can solve the grave dangers posed by climate change if we have the will. Let the Nobel Peace Prize become the embodiment of that will." "Al Gore made it okay to talk about global warming over breakfast and dinner tables all across America," added Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "He made this unprecedented challenge understandable and the solutions accessible for millions of people." 'Question of war and peace' The Nobel committee often uses the coveted prize to cast the global spotlight on a relatively little-known person or cause. Since Gore already had a high profile some had doubted that the committee would bestow the prize on him. In recent years, the committee has broadened the interpretation of peacemaking and disarmament efforts outlined by Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel in creating the prize with his 1895 will. The prize now often also recognizes human rights, democracy, elimination of poverty, sharing resources and the environment. Two of the past three prizes have been untraditional, with the 2004 award to Kenya environmentalist Wangari Maathai and last year's award to Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank, which makes to micro-loans to the country's poor. Jan Egeland, a Norwegian peace mediator and former U.N. undersecretary for humanitarian affairs, called climate change more than an environmental issue. "It is a question of war and peace," said Egeland, now director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo. "We're already seeing the first climate wars, in the Sahel belt of Africa." He said nomads and herders are in conflict with farmers because the changing climate has brought drought and a shortage of fertile lands. The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661/

A statement from Gore:

http://blog.algore.com/2007/10/i_am_deeply_honored.html

And a statement from IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/...00710121521.htm

You know, I'm just sick of it. I'm so sick on how that darn Far Left librulist agenda has successfully pervaded our society. How the hell can sooooo many in the world hold such silly views on this?:

quote:

An average of eight in ten (79%) say that �human activity, including industry and transportation, is a significant cause of climate change.� Nine out of ten say that action is necessary to address global warming. A substantial majority (65%) choose the strongest position, saying that �it is necessary to take major steps starting very soon.� http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p...nt=412&nid=&id=

The whole world is chalk full of Far Left whackos, I tell ya.



Don't they know that our Administration is trying to protect the world from the Far Left whackos, rather than undermine what the vast majority of the world believes and wants to happen?:



Gotta run. My favorite Right Wing Noise Machine mouthpiece is comin' on the radio in 20 min. Need to say my prayers to my poster of his Excellency and pray he successfully pisses all over those darn Far Leftist nutjobs.......

Sorry Mr. Limbaugh, but the sun is not responsible for global warming.. Opus, call in and say something!!

--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ma...1/scisun111.xml

'Sun not responsible for climate change'

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 11/07/2007

The strongest evidence to date that the sun is not responsible for recent global warming has been set out by scientists.

The new study by Prof Michael Lockwood of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Oxfordshire, and Claus Fr�hlich of the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland, overturns claims by climate sceptics who say that the planet's climate has long fluctuated and that current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not greenhouse gas emissions. Their study appears in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

The sun not responsible for global warming
A new study further enforces the view that the sun is not responsible for recent climate change

The study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays.

Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.

Prof Lockwood said that the comprehensive study was a response to misleading media reports. He cited 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', a television programme shown in March by Channel 4, as a prime example.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged afterwards. You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said. "The key point of our paper is that since 1985 all the possible solar influences have been in the wrong direction to give warming," said Prof Lockwood.
advertisement
Telegraph - Menswear/Shoes

Although some have tried to counter this by arguing that the response of the Earth's climate system lags behind changes in the sun, Prof Lockwood added that the only way for this to work would be by invoking a very large response lag of the order of 50 years which would overturn previous ideas of how the Sun influences the Earth.

"This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the sun responsible for present global warming," Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, told the journal Nature.

The new study compiled solar data for the past 100 years. The two researchers averaged out the 11-year solar cycles and looked for correlation between solar variation and global mean temperatures. Solar activity peaked between 1985 and 1987.

But mainstream scientists agree that the sun does have some influence on fluctuations in the Earth's temperature. As Prof Lockwood said: " I do firmly believe that there is a solar influence on pre-industrial climate and that may well have extended into the last century - up to about 1940 - but our results confirm that recent climate change is not caused by the sun. We do this with a simple and direct analysis of data and not using climate computer models - which are often a cause of scepticism."

A spokesman for the Royal Society said: "This is an important contribution to the scientific debate on climate change. At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous."

The issue isn't with what Gore has accomplished, which, if anything, is at least awareness.
A great accomplishment in and of itself.

It's the science behind it thats suspect and what those on the other side of the fence have issue with.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r The issue isn't with what Gore has accomplished, which, if anything, is at least awareness. A great accomplishment in and of itself. It's the science behind it thats suspect and what those on the other side of the fence have issue with.

I don't think so. This is not a scientific issue. This is a political issue. And those who the polluting corporations support with millions of dollars (lobbyists) are spinning the science to serve their interests, which are to preserve the status quo of plundering the earth.

Sorry, but in scientific circles, the consensus is unanimous. People like Limbaugh are so partisan, they will never accept global warming as fact even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, even nobel prizes.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I don't think so. This is not a scientific issue. This is a political issue. And those who the polluting corporations support with millions of dollars (lobbyists) are spinning the science to serve their interests, which are to preserve the status quo of plundering the earth.

The new 'plundering' are those making millions on the new 'global warming' scare.
I have nothing against companies wanting to become more environmentally friendly, that's great, however I have issue with this whole carbon neutral business that has sprung up with no accountability or governance whatsoever.
At this point, any company/business/entity can say they've invested in becoming carbon neutral but where exactly does that money go?
Are we, as rational people supposed to just believe them because that's what their PR people telling us?

Gore himself is a great example of this hypocracy after purchasing carbon credits from a company in which he resides as a chair member!

Some more global warming stinkyness...(again Gore being the pivot point)

quote:

Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can�t afford to play on Gore�s terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.

>>Source<<

quote:

Sorry, but in scientific circles, the consensus is unanimous. People like Limbaugh are so partisan, they will never accept global warming as fact even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, even nobel prizes.

The only consensus among scientists though is that, yes, the earth is getting warmer.
There are loads of papers and theories as to why though.
Everything from humans being the issue, to normal earthly cycles to interplanetary orbits (again a cycle).
There is absolutely NO consensus on the science. More and more scientists are finally coming out from the dark, daring to speak out against the mighty Gore mantra and zealots.
This is far from over...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r The issue isn't with what Gore has accomplished, which, if anything, is at least awareness. A great accomplishment in and of itself. It's the science behind it thats suspect and what those on the other side of the fence have issue with.

If the opposite view of that becomes any more popular this view could very well fall into the lines of conspiracy theory.

Oooohh noeess, they cooked the scientific books on climate change! Don't be fooled by the environmentalist agenda! Hybrid black helicopters coming at cha!

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r The only consensus among scientists though is that, yes, the earth is getting warmer. There are loads of papers and theories as to why though. Everything from humans being the issue, to normal earthly cycles to interplanetary orbits (again a cycle). There is absolutely NO consensus on the science. More and more scientists are finally coming out from the dark, daring to speak out against the mighty Gore mantra and zealots. This is far from over...

Umm, I never knew so many scientists who's sole job is to examine the evidence as objective as possible could be viewed as "zealots." What you describe, however, fits the EXACT description of the Right Wing skeptics who've invested a great amount of time and money in hiring a few scant scientists who have differing views, often times unsupported by the evidence that exists. Who the fuck should we consider as the zealots - scientists or hired guns for the coal/oil industries such as Dr. Robert Balling who published an article in Tech Central Station attacking Gore:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052406F

and who just so happens to have received over $400,000 from ExxonMobile, OPEC, and the fossil fuels industry from the past decade?:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...bert_C._Balling

Or how about Philip Cooney, former chief of staff to President Bush�s Council on Environmental Quality who back in March of this year in a testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee flat out stated he fixed certain facts around the policy for the Bush Administration:

quote:

Mr. Cooney, I guess what we�re trying to figure out is whether what drove the policy and is driving the policy of this administration on global warming and climate change is the science or whether it�s something called the politically correct science. And as I look at the edits that you�ve proposed, I think there were a� (UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, while you�re looking for those, may I just ask some questions of the chair? WAXMAN: Excuse me, the gentleman�s out of order. (UNKNOWN): I think, Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Did you recognize yourself for an additional five minutes before the rest of the panel has a chance to question for five minutes? WAXMAN: No, I did not. I recognize Mr. Issa first for the second round. You proposed 181 edits to the strategic plan, 113 edits to the other global warming reports. There were three reports. I guess what I�m trying to find out is whether all of your proposed edits moved in one direction, which was to increase the uncertainty in global warming science. Would that be a fair statement or an unfair statement? COONEY: I think the fair statement would be that my comments were aligned with the findings of the National Academy of Sciences in June 2001, as emphasized by the president in his policy book in chapter 3 on June 11th, 2001. WAXMAN: Mr. Cooney, you had a senior position at the White House, but there were officials in the White House who were more senior to you. Your immediate boss was James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Was Mr. Connaughton aware of your role in the proposed edits for climate change reports? COONEY: He knew that we were reviewing reports as they came in, ordinarily from OMB from review. WAXMAN: Did he personally review your edits? COONEY: No, not most of them. (UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman� WAXMAN: Would you discuss� (UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, his boss is behind him and is available. WAXMAN: Excuse, but I have the time. I didn�t interrupt you. I waited till you were finished and then I interrupted you. Did you discuss the edits with him? COONEY: No, not ordinarily. WAXMAN: Did he give you any instructions about how any of these three documents should be edited? COONEY: No. He understood that my objective was to align these communications with the administration�s stated policy. http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1214

Hmmmm, "communications" being aligned around the administration's stated policy. Sound familiar?

Sound objective to you?

Jesus you're statements couldn't be more ironic.

And speaking of consensus, here's a commentary back in 2004:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte.../306/5702/1686#

In 2005:

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

And the IPCC report back in March:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/cli...cc-report_x.htm

All having very large (i.e. majority of) scientific bodies stating the exact same idea: global warming being the result of human influence.

Strange how such a "consensus" isn't really a consensus in scientific knowledge, according to you.

Not to mention one of Bush's top scientific advisers stating he's about 90% certain that global warming is the result of mankind's actions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm

IS that Glenn Beck? I love that show.


I love it how people like to show polls on world opinions, this is just hilarious this thread has nothing to contribute. Gore got a price for going around the world wining about global warming a long with it some obvious results on world opinion. Now I do support Liras cause to take these type of threads away

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover IS that Glenn Beck? I love that show.

Ummm, what? Too many bong hits, son?

quote:

I love it how people like to show polls on world opinions,

As do I - it enhances my point as to what the vast majority of the world believes and understands, which by the way the U.S. within that majority as well. But I am talking to someone with such superior intellect that would have already known this.

quote:

this is just hilarious this thread has nothing to contribute.

Acknowledging a Nobel Peace Prize winner and why he won the award is nothing to contribute?

By all means do share with us your vast intellect as to why.

quote:

Gore got a price for going around the world wining about global warming a long with it some obvious results on world opinion.

Ummm, okay. Not exactly sure what "price" Gore got for it, but I'm sure with your vast intellect you're clearly talking way over our head on this, even when you're speaking in your second language.....

quote:

Now I do support Liras cause to take these type of threads away

I doubt Lira would agree with your idiocy. By all means go ahead and ask him and find out for us all.

You still here, son? Why haven't you enlisted yet? I'm just curious, but considering English is your second language and you live in Miami, how long have you been a U.S. citizen? Please drop your pride and join the military to help fight for your cause, soon. Clearly the military and Pentagon brass could truly use your vast intellect to help "win" our war in Iraq. No need to continue wasting your time with us inferiors here........

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r The new 'plundering' are those making millions on the new 'global warming' scare.

You honestly don't think this guy has good intentions and a desire to better his fellow humanity?

He donated the cash from the prize to charity too...

I swear, half of us are so cynical and jaded that we wouldn't recognize a good thing if it poked us in the eye.

MisterOpus2,

Is that all you can do is bitch about why I dont enlist in the military for the cause that i support? That is the most common and oldest statement a far left on someone that supports out troops and want them to be victorious. That statement is older than Jesus.

Let me ask you, what have you dont for this country? What have you done to make this country a better place for the future? Have you volunteered in the Arm services yourself?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby You honestly don't think this guy has good intentions and a desire to better his fellow humanity? He donated the cash from the prize to charity too... I swear, half of us are so cynical and jaded that we wouldn't recognize a good thing if it poked us in the eye.

While collecting millions on the side via his own Church de Global Chauffage? Yea, he's a swell guy...
Again, there's no doubt his sermon on actual awareness, it's all the science he choose behind it...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Umm, I never knew so many scientists who's sole job is to examine the evidence as objective as possible could be viewed as "zealots." What you describe, however, fits the EXACT description of the Right Wing skeptics who've invested a great amount of time and money in hiring a few scant scientists who have differing views, often times unsupported by the evidence that exists. Who the fuck should we consider as the zealots - scientists or hired guns for the coal/oil industries such as Dr. Robert Balling who published an article in Tech Central Station attacking Gore: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052406F and who just so happens to have received over $400,000 from ExxonMobile, OPEC, and the fossil fuels industry from the past decade?: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...bert_C._Balling Or how about Philip Cooney, former chief of staff to President Bush�s Council on Environmental Quality who back in March of this year in a testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee flat out stated he fixed certain facts around the policy for the Bush Administration: Hmmmm, "communications" being aligned around the administration's stated policy. Sound familiar? Sound objective to you? Jesus you're statements couldn't be more ironic. And speaking of consensus, here's a commentary back in 2004: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte.../306/5702/1686# In 2005: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf And the IPCC report back in March: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/cli...cc-report_x.htm All having very large (i.e. majority of) scientific bodies stating the exact same idea: global warming being the result of human influence. Strange how such a "consensus" isn't really a consensus in scientific knowledge, according to you. Not to mention one of Bush's top scientific advisers stating he's about 90% certain that global warming is the result of mankind's actions: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm

Oh come on Opus, I can pull out all sorts of other reports from other sources that have NO government affiliations other than your convenient ones.
There's U.N. reports on Cows and methane, how about ones on Volcanoes or Solar activity?
The point is, there are lots of reports from all sides that point that man is hardly the only source of global warming regardless of affiliation.
I'm not saying we don't have any effect but it's a spit in the overall bucket we can definately control.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Oh come on Opus, I can pull out all sorts of other reports from other sources that have NO government affiliations other than your convenient ones.

Sorry to see how a vast majority of scientific consensus of human causes attributing to global warming is somehow connected to a government affiliation and somehow convenient to my argument.

I'll tell you what, I've presented evidence of the obvious bias and downright obfuscation with conflicted interests on your side of the argument, why don't you present evidence that the vast majority consensus of environmental scientists (climatologists, geologists, ecologists, marine biologists, biologists, glaciologists, oceanographers, geographers, etc. etc. etc.) with their "affiliations" with the government agencies are somehow biasing their research as a consequence to their affiliations.

I'm making an assumption that you mean those said scientists begging for grants from governmental agencies for their research, which is hardly a compelling parallel to being paid by oil/coal companies with obvious vested interests in maintaining the status quo and increasing profits. But I'm willing to entertain your attempts nonetheless.

quote:

There's U.N. reports on Cows and methane, how about ones on Volcanoes or Solar activity? The point is, there are lots of reports from all sides that point that man is hardly the only source of global warming regardless of affiliation.

There always are, yet your mere handwave of the gigantic litany of peer-reviewed evidence that's overwhelmingly in support of human involvement with global warming does not lend credence to your argument much.

quote:

I'm not saying we don't have any effect but it's a spit in the overall bucket we can definately control.

Because why again? Should we all tell the vast majority of scientific consensus that they're full o' shit because, well, they just don't know what they're talking about?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Sorry to see how a vast majority of scientific consensus of human causes attributing to global warming is somehow connected to a government affiliation and somehow convenient to my argument. I'll tell you what, I've presented evidence of the obvious bias and downright obfuscation with conflicted interests on your side of the argument, why don't you present evidence that the vast majority consensus of environmental scientists (climatologists, geologists, ecologists, marine biologists, biologists, glaciologists, oceanographers, geographers, etc. etc. etc.) with their "affiliations" with the government agencies are somehow biasing their research as a consequence to their affiliations.

I'll admit I haven't posted much in the way of supportive material, I'll try and fix that when I'm not at work...
(I do have a little time, it's Friday yea know)

quote:

I'm making an assumption that you mean those said scientists begging for grants from governmental agencies for their research, which is hardly a compelling parallel to being paid by oil/coal companies with obvious vested interests in maintaining the status quo and increasing profits. But I'm willing to entertain your attempts nonetheless.

There's billions of dollars in government grants that get blown too so this argument really goes both ways.
I'm willing the bet though that the government grant money has been around a lot longer than the current influx of debunking corporate ones though.

quote:

There always are, yet your mere handwave of the gigantic litany of peer-reviewed evidence that's overwhelmingly in support of human involvement with global warming does not lend credence to your argument much.

Again, yes I'm providing an arguement at the moment that's, at best, whimsical, but believe me, my arguement here is hardly solitary or dismissive.

quote:

Because why again? Should we all tell the vast majority of scientific consensus that they're full o' shit because, well, they just don't know what they're talking about?

Not at all, we should be responsible for the polution we put into the air!
It's the 'link' between what these scientists have found and their lofty correlation - causation arguments that's under fire from other scientists.

Before I leave for the day...how about a National Geographic article?
You can't tell me they are on the oil payroll...

quote:

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says Kate Ravilious for National Geographic News February 28, 2007 Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural�and not a human-induced�cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".) Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. Solar Cycles Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars. Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists. "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].) Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations." Planets' Wobbles The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun. "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].) All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years. These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth. Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now. "Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said. No Greenhouse Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface. He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars. But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin. Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide. Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store. "The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

>>Source<<

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r There's billions of dollars in government grants that get blown too so this argument really goes both ways. I'm willing the bet though that the government grant money has been around a lot longer than the current influx of debunking corporate ones though.

I'm not arguing that government $ gets blown. I'm not sure how that substantiates or refutes anything. However my point stands and is left unanswered:

quote:

I'm making an assumption that you mean those said scientists begging for grants from governmental agencies for their research, which is hardly a compelling parallel to being paid by oil/coal companies with obvious vested interests in maintaining the status quo and increasing profits. But I'm willing to entertain your attempts nonetheless.

There's a major difference between a researcher begging for grant money (i.e. that which funds his research) from a given agency (government) versus a private agency who has a vested interest in the $ they give to a given researcher that supports their business interests (i.e. global warming isn't man-made, keep drilling!). Begging for funds is a wee bit different than being handed funds to support business interests.

quote:

Not at all, we should be responsible for the polution we put into the air! It's the 'link' between what these scientists have found and their lofty correlation - causation arguments that's under fire from other scientists.

To which the majority of those few scientists in the very small minority dissent have shown to be funded by the very same private companies that have a financial interest in keeping the status quo. Just a wee bit too coincidental, don't you think?

this isn't necessarily in response to the article itself but do you know who else had previously been nominated for (and/or has won) the Nobel Peace Prize?

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and Henry Kissinger.

However, (as I quote from Wikipedia)

quote:

...since nomination requires only support from one qualified person (e.g., a history professor), these unusual nominations do not represent the opinions of the Nobel committee itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Before I leave for the day...how about a National Geographic article? You can't tell me they are on the oil payroll... >>Source<<

No, but I can tell you that a solar physicist is clearly not in an experienced position to be discussing climate research and here's why:

1. Has his work been published by peer reviewed literature? Sorry, but the National Geographic is not a primary source of peer-reviewed literature. Does one wonder why such research has not been published yet that supposedly supports his ideas of solar radiation being the cause?

Or are we going to speculate on the vast Left Wing Conspiracy of peer-reviewed scientific literature?

This process by Abdussamatov of going to the Nat'l Geographic is eerily similar to performing the old "doing science by press" routine by individuals who cannot get their work published in peer-revied literature. Unfortunately it's more common than you'd think.

2. Solar forcing hasn't changed substantially in the last 30 years from direct observations, and speculated around 50 years from indirect observations of sunspots, cosmic rays, F10.7 radio flux, etc.

3. Explaining climate change via one single variable as Abdussamatov is attempting to do is ridiculous and bad science.

4. Predictions of solar activity are much more uncertain, much more so versus the impacts of greenhouse gases

5. No where does Abdussamatov demonstrate that solar forcing is larger than greenhouse gases. If a valid projection for climate changes is to be made like Abdussamatov is attempting than this would be necessary. Every other comparison done by anything else has aptly demonstrated that variations of the solar cycle are small compared to the greenhouse gas forcing. If you examine the measurements of the solar cycle being directly measured, it makes a blip on the graphs of climate forcings seen here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/F_line.gif

Here's another interesting angle:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-cycle-data.png

Notice how there's no increase. Actually there's a slight decrease, and examining the Y-angle you'll see the fluctuations are quite small.

But Abdussamatov claims otherwise. Strange how he hasn't published anything to demonstrate this in peer-reviewed literature.

Abdussamatov has also argued that the upper layers of the ocean have cooled in recent years. Unfortunately for him the evidence doesn't support his assertions.

So while this scientist certainly may not be a paid worker of the oil and gas industry, he's clearly not talking within his field of expertise, and the data within his own field is a bit questionable at best.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r The new 'plundering' are those making millions on the new 'global warming' scare. I have nothing against companies wanting to become more environmentally friendly, that's great, however I have issue with this whole carbon neutral business that has sprung up with no accountability or governance whatsoever. At this point, any company/business/entity can say they've invested in becoming carbon neutral but where exactly does that money go? Are we, as rational people supposed to just believe them because that's what their PR people telling us? Gore himself is a great example of this hypocracy after purchasing carbon credits from a company in which he resides as a chair member!

I think the carbon credit people (Carbonfund, etc.) are non-profits, so I don't think Al's financially benefiting as much as you're claiming.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy I think the carbon credit people (Carbonfund, etc.) are non-profits, so I don't think Al's financially benefiting as much as you're claiming.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking.

The guy seems to be just trying to help out, and everyone is jumping down his throat. It's the natural reaction to dangerous new information:

1. fear and backlash
2. disbelief and apathy
3. acceptance

I really don't see how he could be benefitting from making this shit up. Why would he? There's no oil shares to be made in this. There's nothing to gain except a more secure future for our children.

A much simpler question regarding all of this, how does Gore fit into this criteria anyways?
The prize is supposed to go, "[T]o the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Anyone?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r A much simpler question regarding all of this, how does Gore fit into this criteria anyways? The prize is supposed to go, "[T]o the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Anyone?

I guess because every country in the world now realizes that the future is in jeopardy and that we have to work together to solve a potential disaster.

Gore didn't invent global warming; he just translated some data onto a medium that got people thinking and talking on a supermassive scale.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Before I leave for the day...how about a National Geographic article? You can't tell me they are on the oil payroll... >>Source<<

Hmmmm or maybe it could be the carbon dioxide jets that have been erupting from the solar ice caps on Mars ...

quote:

Findings Suggest Jets Bursting From Martian Ice Cap Every spring brings violent eruptions to the south polar ice cap of Mars, according to researchers interpreting new observations by NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter. Jets of carbon dioxide gas erupting from the ice cap as it warms in the spring carry dark sand and dust high aloft. The dark material falls back to the surface, creating dark patches on the ice cap which have long puzzled scientists. Deducing the eruptions of carbon dioxide gas from under the warming ice cap solves the riddle of the spots. It also reveals that this part of Mars is much more dynamically active than had been expected for any part of the planet. "If you were there, you'd be standing on a slab of carbon-dioxide ice," said Phil Christensen of Arizona State University, Tempe, principal investigator for Odyssey's camera. "All around you, roaring jets of carbon dioxide gas are throwing sand and dust a couple hundred feet into the air." You'd also feel vibration through your spacesuit boots, he said. "The ice slab you're standing on is levitated above the ground by the pressure of gas at the base of the ice." The team began its research in an attempt to explain mysterious dark spots, fan-like markings, and spider-shaped features seen in images that cameras on Odyssey and on NASA's Mars Global Surveyor have observed on the ice cap at the Martian south pole. The dark spots, typically 15 to 46 meters (50 to 150 feet) wide and spaced several hundred feet apart, appear every southern spring as the sun rises over the ice cap. They last for several months and then vanish -- only to reappear the next year, after winter's cold has deposited a fresh layer of ice on the cap. Most spots even seem to recur at the same locations. An earlier theory proposed that the spots were patches of warm, bare ground exposed as the ice disappeared. However, the camera on Odyssey, which sees in both infrared and visible-light wavelengths, discovered that the spots are nearly as cold as the carbon dioxide ice, suggesting they were just a thin layer of dark material lying on top of the ice and kept chilled by it. To understand how that layer is produced, Christensen's team used the camera -- the Thermal Emission Imaging System -- to collect more than 200 images of one area of the ice cap from the end of winter through midsummer. Some places remained spot-free for more than 100 days, then developed many spots in a week. Fan-shaped dark markings didn't form until days or weeks after the spots appeared, yet some fans grew to half a mile in length. Even more puzzling was the origin of the "spiders," grooves eroded into the surface under the ice. The grooves converge at points directly beneath a spot. "The key to figuring out the spiders and the spots was thinking through a physical model for what was happening," said Christensen. The process begins in the sunless polar winter when carbon dioxide from the atmosphere freezes into a layer about three feet thick on top of a permanent ice cap of water ice, with a thin layer of dark sand and dust in between. In spring, sunlight passing through the slab of carbon dioxide ice reaches the dark material and warms it enough that the ice touching the ground sublimates -- turns into gas. Before long, the swelling reservoir of trapped gas lifts the slab and eventually breaks through at weak spots that become vents. High-pressure gas roars through at speeds of 161 kilometers per hour (100 miles per hour) or more. Under the slab, the gas erodes ground as it rushes toward the vents, snatching up loose particles of sand and carving the spidery network of grooves. Christensen, Hugh Kieffer (U.S. Geological Survey, retired) and Timothy Titus (USGS) report the new interpretation in the Aug. 17, 2006, issue of the journal Nature. Source: NASA/JPL

It's really quite silly to try to blame solar irradiance as the cause for global warming similarties on Earth and Mars or across the entire solar system as that conveys a lack of understanding of just how different the climate systems of each of the planets are. Warming on Mars has been largely attributed to the Milankovitch cycles and the effect of dust storms. However, if you want to attribute global warming on Earth to the decrease in solar irradiance over the past 3 decades (and thus the reason why ALL planets AND moons are consistently warming ... oh wait they ALL are warming right?), than you have your work cut out for you.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/0...tivity_climate/

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r A much simpler question regarding all of this, how does Gore fit into this criteria anyways? The prize is supposed to go, "[T]o the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Anyone?

Look, bitch about the science all that you want. If you (and to be honest, I've seen that while our ideas are different, you, unlike so many others are not completely stupid) don't understand why under the logic under which he won doesn't qualify, let me easily explain:

Global warming as proposed by Gore = increased temps ->melting ice->heightened ocean levels->COASTAL FLOODING->REFUGEES =/= Peace. When you're home becomes uninhabitable, you're fighting for your life and unsurprisingly, you'll fuck anyone over to live. Areas of chaos are the most fertile breeding grounds for fighting (AKA, non-peace).

For a dumbed down version, just look at New Orleans after Katrina. That in itself should make us fear that type of situation far more than we fear terrorist attacks. Can you imagine that sort of disaster in New York, DC, Miami, LA, San Francisco, Seattle and shitloads of other coastal areas? That in itself, if we actually cared about Americans, should make us want to realistically look at how to prevent such a disaster. But we don't. All of those cities that I listed are full of liberal scum, that to be honest, we'd all be better off without because they're not REAL Americans, right?

Look, I'm not saying that all of the science regarding global warming is certain. I'm saying that if you people, most of whom believe in God without question or logic, don't believe in global warming because "it's just a theory" or "the science isn't definite" and you're wrong, we're all fucked, because we don't have the 100s of years of data that some people require for definite conclusions.

If we actually try to reduce our waste and consumption, what's the problem? Are you pissed because we shouldn't drive SUVs that waste energy so that our fat soccer moms feel safe? I'd think that energy dependency would be on the top priority list for the GOP, as it would give us a reason to end fighting, but it's not, because fighting is profitable.

Honestly, has anyone really given a reason to oppose reducing global emissions, besides that some of our most profitable companies, like Exxon, will make 1% less? Even if warming isn't the problem, do we all think that the smog levels are healthy?

Oh, but really, go fuck yourself Al Gore. You were involved in politics at one time. As a result, even if you were campaigning against someone who killed Michelle Malkin's parents, you're still a scumbag that can't be trusted and as such, you should deal with a life of condemnation from Rush and the Viagra cronies.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.