Re: Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize
 

The Genocide in Rawanda has been linked to climate change.

Re: Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize
 

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously? I didn't think that award could get more worthless, but I was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

edit: And I'm a huge environmentalist.

Re: Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Genocide in Rawanda has been linked to climate change.

[/ QUOTE ]

So has the genocide in Darfur by some U.N. moron errh I mean U.N. Secretary General.

Re: Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize
 

[ QUOTE ]
It was recently ruled in an English court that Gore's movie is politically partisan has no less than 11 material inaccuracies.

[/ QUOTE ]





"One of the most over-the-top spins came from the far right Heartland Institute, funded by tobacco and Big Oil, which issued a widely copied press release this week saying that "the British High Court properly recognized that Al Gore's movie is nine parts political propaganda and one part science."

There's just one problem: These are all lies, and the British Court said no such thing. In truth, the judge agreed with Gore and the film's thesis, and it is inconvenient for the Right to admit it. A review of what the judge actually wrote in his ruling proves it.

Here are the facts. A global warming denier, a British truckdriving father of two teens, sued to ban the showing of the film in the public schools. In a blow to the father, a High Court judge ruled that the film can be shown, but that teachers must emphasize to students that it's political, with a point of view. As the judge put it, "It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film - although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion - but that it is a political film."

There were some things in the film the father objected to, and the judge found that while the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of the cause and effect of climate change, there were some representations with which he took issue.

For example, the judge ruled that in the film Gore suggests that the drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro's snows and Hurricane Katrina may well have been caused by climate change, but the judge said the scientific community has yet to prove a direct link.

The judge also accepted the government's offer to rewrite some aspects of the teacher's study guide to reflect that some of the statements in the film are not 100% universally accepted.

This is really not that big a deal. Plenty of scientifically sound views are not yet 100% accepted by all scientists, as the process of scientific inquiry is always ongoing. And after all, there are even some credentialed scientists out there who still don't accept Darwinian evolution in the 21st century, for God's sake!

But get this: according to the FOX News website, the judge ruled that the film was accurate in "four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals." In particular, the judge agreed "that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ('greenhouse gases')." These are quotes from the judge.

The other three key points in the film the judge agreed with: "that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts." Again, from the judge."

link

Re: Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll conceed that the Nobel Prize committee was trying to make a political statement as well, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

When hasn't the Nobel Peace price been about making a political statement? Mother Theresa? Fairly certain that was too. I actually don't care that it's a political statement because it seems that politics is in the realm of someone who should a get a peace prize award. Gore's specific contributions to "peace" are the issue methinks.


As far as your statement about conservatives denying that global warming exists is just plain wrong. There's not a shred of evidence that the climate models are accurate in making predictions about climate change. There's not a shred of evidence that what governments are recommending and seeking to implement will change anything. It's clear though that it will cost people more money and there are special interests that will benefit a great deal and where their campaign contributions are directed.

Re: Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize
 

Gobbo, nothing in that link refutes what I said. The link itself is putting a spin on what was actually ruled in the courts: that the film had significant inaccuracies and that it has a political bias. That's why the judge ruled that when children view it, it has to be with a disclaimer.

Re: Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize
 

They should change the award's name to the "Worldwide Manipulation of Shortsightedness Contest".

Re: Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you guys are saying Al Gore has not done good?

[/ QUOTE ]
He took the initiative in creating the Internet! That alone is worth a Nobel!!!

Re: Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize
 

He's done more than any other individual to make the reality of climate change an accepted fact in the minds of the common man, a well deserved award.

Re: Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize
 

[ QUOTE ]
Gobbo, nothing in that link refutes what I said. The link itself is putting a spin on what was actually ruled in the courts: that the film had significant inaccuracies and that it has a political bias. That's why the judge ruled that when children view it, it has to be with a disclaimer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No actually your statement is directly refuted. you stated 11 inaccuracies, in truth there are 9 debateable points. There is a world of difference between a point that cannot be established has 100% true and a lie. There is a difference between saying a red sock is blue and that men devoloped from a process of natural selection.

As far as most "conservatives" believing in global warming. How long has this been so for you? Less than 2 years, I would bet a fair amount on. For the last 2 decades the argument has been there is no proof of warming, and now like the "god of the gaps" theories, science has proven the rhetoric wrong and now the movement towards admitting warming, but not man made. For the record though within 6-12 months you will be spouting how global warming isn't even a bad thing.

O why, O why does humanity rather cling to their own ideolagy than truth. Climate change is not the greatest threat to humans, it is mankinds grip to their olivetrees in the face of reason.