Gore, U.N. Body Win Nobel Peace Prize

Full story: CBS13/CW31

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change, and to lay the ...

Comments (Page 73)

Showing posts 1,441 - 1,460 of2,284
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Gone Baby Gone”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1527
Oct 16, 2007
 
Telmark wrote:
Aging Hippy wrote;
"You are already paying a "global tax" and have been for years. That you are only figuring that out now is kinda slow on the uptake, isn't it?"
I've been against taxes, welfare, and socialism from the the day I received my first paycheck at age 12. How about you Hippy?
My first real paycheck was at 15-- I earned $1 per hour. I have a big enough Ayn Rand streak in me to be very opposed to big government. What we have now is bloat beyond all insanity. Cut it in half and I'd bet they still couldn't manage it. I would vote for a total overhaul of the tax code. Flat tax sounds good when I think about how it puts beady-eyed accountants out of work. What a nightmare! However with all that said, I am not opposed to paying for things when there is sense and accountability in it. I see that we don't live in a vacuum. I can see the need for some limited welfare, nothing like we have now. And cooperatives have their function in a capitalistic system too since not everything is or should be about money. But there is enough conservative about me that I wrangle being called a liberal and vice versa. There is no reason by my acccounting that we should pay more than 8-10% tax across the board. If it can't be done with that, then it ought not be done by government.

“Climate change + politics”

Since: Oct 07

Basel Switzerland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1528
Oct 16, 2007
 
Okay. I try to answer your question in the context that everybody in the forum can see. If the newer sample of the dataset of peer reviewed paper containing "climate change" indeed challenges a particular consensus position on climate change, then it is indeed a very significant number IF the media say that the science is settled on THIS particular matter. Anyway, that's only a tiny bit of the story, right?
Telmark

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1529
Oct 16, 2007
 
Why We Kill wrote;

"Laughing Out Loud, Concerned Scientists?? BS man... tell me this, can you say with CLEAR truth and CONCERN that the mississippi river has not changed one bit since mankind started their 1st trip upstream? and Has that changed the ecosystem of the river and its surroundings? Concerned scientists?? LOL!!! I bet haliburtin Paid you modestly for that Oppinion!"

Well tell us what should be done to halt "global warming" besides "cutting the plastic can holders" WWK. Should we halt welfare and socialism so as to halt the global welfare (i.e. non-productive) population growth? Maybe we should switch to solar, geothermal, wind, and other "alternative" energy sources right? Just remember that these alternative energy sources will not, any time soon, support the current global population growth let alone the global "welfare" population.

Why We Kill also writes;
"yes and maybe 1 little animal doesnt mean anything to Goodstanding Members of Science, but it does to us!"

I guess that means you're against abortion just as many Republicans are right WWK?

WWK then writes;

"I bet haliburtin Paid you modestly for that Oppinion!"

Gore just paid a UC Chico "scientist" a large sum of money for his "studies" that "support" Gore's views on this. Can you say "kick back" WWK?
tournefort

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1530
Oct 16, 2007
 
AntiFlag wrote:
<quoted text>
....9/11 is entirely the fault of power mad republicans and their time-wasting witchhunt.
What was the witch hunt that happened between January 2001 and 9/11?

“Gone Baby Gone”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1531
Oct 16, 2007
 
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a member in good standing of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Global warming is not the result of humans. It is still unknown like it always was.
I understand that a number of scientist believe just as you do. Do you offer any explanation why so many other scientists conclude that global warming is partly manmade? And if it is unknown like you say, could that not still mean it is manmade but we have yet to determine that?

“Gone Baby Gone”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1532
Oct 16, 2007
 
climatepatrol wrote:
<quoted text>
6%, a significant number? Excuse me, are you trying to pull me a leg? Could you be a bit more precise in your question? What are you up to?
This is a quote from your blog---

"It then appeared in the Dailytech blog as a new study that attempted to reveil that a growing number of scientists (6%) now explicitly doubt the consensus position as portraited by the UN panel on climate change.."

And it seemed to me as if 6% impresses you concerning the doubters. So I asked why did that small of a number impress you. Technically speaking that leaves 94% not in doubt about the consenses position as portraited by the UN panel on climate change, does it not?
Answer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1533
Oct 16, 2007
 
lisw wrote:
Why is it that the libs talk so much, ad nauseum?
They are trying to apply a lesson from history. Hitler knew that if you tell a lie often enough, long enough, loud enough that sheeple would start to believe the lie. He even started by taking over the media just as the left had before the advent of the internet.(ABC, CBS, NBC, and NPR are ALL leftist orginizations). Fortunately the internet (and Cable TV) have given the other side a voice also, and the left hates that. they talk ad nauseum to try to take over those services also, but it is a lost cause. The truth is getting out in spite of them.

“Gone Baby Gone”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1534
Oct 16, 2007
 
Why We Kill wrote:
To all of you whom dont believe in Gore or enviromental change, you may want to withen your own political affiliation, For i believe that is the global meltdown that you cant deny. Lets call it Politcal party warming! The party has been hi-jacked, the scandals are mounting and the right-wing fanatics are tearing America apart. Yes the party of Hannity, Limbaugh, Cultra, Cheney, Rumsfield, Delay, orielly and not to mention Foley, Craig and a host of stars in the most recent scandals that have rocked the republican boat!
Things are coming full circle and whom do you vote for? Giuliani, a man who has hacked the basic and sacred conservative family value of marriage three times... his kids have endorsed Obama!
Or do you vote for Fred, the guy who waits till last minute to assure America Hes for real, Maybe he is spending a little to much time with that Trophy Wife of his... guess his other wife was too old!
That leaves Mitt Romney... The Mormon, yes Mormon! Can the Republican Party truly look at the man and not the religion he has found to guide him? Democrats would!
So what is the party of disarray to do?? My guess is the attack machine is revving up; the Murdock media mandate is in dark rooms across America planning the demise of the opposition!
How can regular republicans whom have been lead down the path of self-destruction survive?
They can do what their hearts tell them, Not what their leaders are lying to them about.
Here is some advice, and with strong conviction I say... I am your friend and your neighbor, I appreciate our freedom to disagree and debate. Can we work to solve the problems together and not be enemies in our own states? Please help us to make America better because we can, not because it serves a political purpose. and Dont let these TV personalities destroy Your party or our reputations to gain wealth at all of our expense!
I give a great big bah humbug to all parties equally! It should be about ideas and solutions, not partisan ideologies and strategies. Partisan bigotry is almost as bad today as racial bigotry once was and just as damaging.

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1535
Oct 16, 2007
 
Aging Hippy wrote:
<quoted text>Is there or is there not enough consensus in all that research regarding global warming to take action in a certain direction is a very valid question. Thorough research is what was needed to answer that and so thorough research was conducted. Many did this research-- some well, some poorly, some honestly and some with a pre-concieved agenda (which is very bad science if it's even science at all).
The most highly regarded by other scientists is that work done by the IPCC, which by the way is why it shares the Nobel prize with Gore.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/30...
It helps to have the enormous body of science sifted by peer review and then verified by those who are also themselves verified. All out front for anyone's scrutiny. This is what produces the consensus that allows us to act on what science finds, whether that action amounts to using soap more now that we understand there are such invisible things as germs or reducing negative environmental impact because it is in humanity's progeny's best interest.
This process that produces consensus is a filtering process that eliminates the inaccurate much like water passing through various materials filters out impurities and it works just as beautifully.
is it prudent to spend trillions of dollars on what at best the IPCC says is 90% likely whilst people die from hunger, disease and exposure.
Is it prudent to waste trillions on an alarmist cause that yet is scientificaly empirically proven and whilst reality seems to be working in contradiction with MODELS!
is it prudent to potentially bankrupt economies when the science still ISNT SURE!
I dont think so

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1536
Oct 16, 2007
 
sdmiller wrote:
<quoted text>
I just assumed it had already morped into the desired obvious end...
AMERICAN GLOBAL WARMING
LMAO
well they tried but since its been exposed that they fiddled with the figures and 1998 is the third warmest year in 150yrs of records (after 1934 and 1921) they figured it wasnt such a good idea

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1537
Oct 16, 2007
 
Aging Hippy wrote:
<quoted text>Are you suggesting that global warming means all part of the earth will experience consistent warmer weather? Because if you are--- it rather flies in the face that many people already understand that global warming means the climate patterns rearrange-- producing more floods and droughts where there were not so many before, greater storms where there are storms and both hotter and colder climates. We have been seeing this stuff for some time. The science that proves these climate changes are a direct result of what we have done to the environment is part of what is solid within that consensus we are talking about here. If global warming meant we all just got a little warmer there would be absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
well genius blaming everything on something that doesnt exist isnt really common sense - think about it

in relation to hurricanes;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Ferguson-FlaH...
in relation to droughts and floods;
Weather extremes such as droughts, floods, hurricane, tornadoes, and heat waves have become more common.

Scientists have studied this issue and come to the opposite conclusion: extreme events are becoming LESS common. Atlantic hurricanes were much more numerous from 1950 to 1975 than from 1975 to present. Hailstorms in the US are 35% less common than they were fifty years ago. Extreme rainfall in the US at the end of the 20th century is comparable to what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Roger Pielke, Jr, in the journal Climatic Change (1999) said it is essentially impossible to attribute any particular weather event to global warming. For flooding, Pielke did list a number of important non-climatic factors that have the potential to influence flooding in the future, including deteriorating dams and levees, changes in land use, building in flood-prone areas, governmental policies, as well as other societal influences. Pielke, R.A., JR. 1999. Nine fallacies of floods. Climatic Change 42: 413-438.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#...

I thought you said the rules were to back up your arguments with references - funny you continue to fail to even do that let alone argue intelligently

Since: Jul 07

NYC NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1538
Oct 16, 2007
 
Aging Hippy wrote:
<quoted text>If I may elaborate, it is certain kinds of pollution, namely the greenhouse gases that humans add more and more exponentially, that cause the warming part by trapping in the heat the earth radiates that would normally pass more freely through the atmosphere but doesn't now.
Other kinds of pollution, known as particle pollution that amounts to dirt in the air from various sources such as smoke from wildfires or factories, is now proved to have helped to slow down the greenhouse gas effect by stopping some portion of the sunlight from penetrating the atmosphere to begin with. As we cleaned up particle pollution, we increased the sunlight getting through and worsening the global warming.
1. Carbon dioxide is not pollution it is a constituent of the atmosphere necessary for life.

2. Carbon dioxide emissions are not being increased exponentially,(increasing at an increasing rate) in the US or Western Europe. In the US it is a linear increase,(flat for tons/capita/GDP), in BRIC it is increasing at an increasing rate (linear for tons CO2 / capita / GDP).

3. During the 70s the entire global cooling effect was considered to be the dominate force, however in the 70s it was a much more nuanced discussion. The global cooling camp always considered the effects of possible influences from increasing CO2. It was not until Al Gore that the science was viewed only as global warming and the effects of particulate pollution seem to be ignored.

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1539
Oct 16, 2007
 
football dad wrote:
<quoted text>
Gore owns 2 Mercury Mariner hybrids, his son drives a Prius, surely you can't be that stupid not to know that?
well it would be more environmentally sound if they drove hummers when you look at the cost to the environment of the batteries for hybrid cars
Doublegrapes

West Grove, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1540
Oct 16, 2007
 
sdmiller wrote:
<quoted text>
A) You have it backwards...pissant...But nice try
The secular MOVEMENT is most definitely leftwing/liberal, does that mean YOU can do a 180 with what I said and assert that I said ALL secularists are leftwing? Of course not
B) Evolution and the promotion thereof Same as above...
Yep you can certainly find some on the right but THE MOVEMENT is most assuradly LEFTWING
C) Unless you Liberals are going to come on here and now and state that YOU DO NOT SUPPORT A SECULAR SOCIETY AND THE PROMOTION OF OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
I don't have to be concerned that conservatives will take me up on this challenge because these are liberal leftwing ideologies as I stated in the previous post
Evolution happened everywhere, except for your house. So I suggest you take a ride on your 6000 year old pet dinosaur, but be careful that you don't go off the edge of our flat earth.

“The world as I know it”

Since: Dec 06

Sydney

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1541
Oct 16, 2007
 
Aging Hippy wrote:
<quoted text>I give a great big bah humbug to all parties equally! It should be about ideas and solutions, not partisan ideologies and strategies. Partisan bigotry is almost as bad today as racial bigotry once was and just as damaging.
ummm isnt that like you the pot calling the kettle black?

you know AH you help those skeptical of AGW simply by youre ongoing verbousness and mere - stupidity.
Doublegrapes

West Grove, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1543
Oct 16, 2007
 
football dad wrote:
<quoted text>
Gore owns 2 Mercury Mariner hybrids, his son drives a Prius, surely you can't be that stupid not to know that?
SD Miller does his part by carpooling with Larry Craig. Good job SD.
Telmark

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1544
Oct 16, 2007
 
Aging Hippy,

I agree with your last post AH.

I must say that I was a licensed State of California "unlimited" BAR 90 smog tech for five plus years. Big deal huh? Not really, but I felt that I was doing something to reduce auto pollution. I guess that most of us feel that the government is about making a buck and little else.
Doublegrapes

West Grove, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1545
Oct 16, 2007
 
AntiFlag wrote:
<quoted text>
And you neocons all know the real truth. All these things happened because...
CLINTON HAD SEX!!!!!!!!!!
SD Miller doesn't like sex, unless it's him with another man (preferably a young one)
Doublegrapes

West Grove, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1546
Oct 16, 2007
 
sdmiller wrote:
www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ editorials/2006-08-09-gore-gre en_x.htm
When will you liberal morons realize your being duped...
You CAN'T ALL be as stupid as FBD and that old hippie thing...
Gore
Pelosi
Kennedy
Moore
Streisand
EVERY LIBERAL LEADER YOU CAN NAME...
NOT A SINGLE ONE LIVES THE WAY THEY TELL YOU TO LIVE!!!
GET A CLUE...
NOT ONE!!!
Douchebag, no one says we should live in tents. It is time to start to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. It will create jobs, help the environment, help to slow the growing problem with asthma, and make us safer by relieving our dependence on foreign oil. No, there are no young boys involved with this SD, sorry.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1547
Oct 16, 2007
 
Aging Hippy wrote:
<quoted text>I understand that a number of scientist believe just as you do. Do you offer any explanation why so many other scientists conclude that global warming is partly manmade? And if it is unknown like you say, could that not still mean it is manmade but we have yet to determine that?
Around the unknown there will always be an evolution of ideas but we are far from understanding climate. Think of the answer to climate as a pile of sand and we only have one grain to work with at this point.
Politically global warming is to the left what WMDs are to the right. It was born in politics and bred in the media and has little to do with science. It certainly puts scientists in an awkward spot to be told to come up with a conclusion when there is so little to work with but so much money and reputation at stake.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,441 - 1,460 of2,284
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••