Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Utah, I admit I can't provide the links you're seeking. I hate having Wacki fight my battles for me, so I want you to consider that if Wacki's location field is correct:

[ QUOTE ]
reading 1K climate journals

[/ QUOTE ]
And that Wacki is the foremost defender of the "Man Causes Global Warming" hypothesis on this forum, I want you to consider that maybe a few of those 1k peer-reviewed climate journals have included papers concluding that man does in fact cause global warming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, the fact that he has consistantly failed to provide links to any decent evidence over the past many, many months kind of destroys any validity in this.

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You demonstrate your ignorance here. You do not understand that this is ordinary language distilled from a precise scientific meaning - which is clearly defined in the report. The language isn't loose at all if you have any notion of the underlying science that it refers to. For example, this graph is far from a "loose phrase" - but it forms part of the basis for the layman language that you see in the report.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are they getting the total net error bar? If you have two quantities with non-fractional error ranges, the measure of the error of the net is a summation of the measure of each individual errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah I found the answer:
6.13 Global Mean Radiative Forcings
[ QUOTE ]
The uncertainty range, as employed in this chapter, is not the product of systematic quantitative analyses of the various factors associated with the forcing, and thus lacks a rigorous statistical basis. The usage here is different from the manner “uncertainty range” is defined and addressed elsewhere in this document. The SAR had also stated a “confidence level” which represented a subjective judgement that the actual forcing would lie within the specified uncertainty range

[/ QUOTE ]

So trillions of dollars of possible resource misallocation based on a carefully selected group of lead authors "in the gut" estimate.

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're a big boy and can discuss directly. I would like your comments on the NAS quote. Would you agree that it clearly states that there is no definitive link between human activity and global warming?

[/ QUOTE ]
I really can't. I'm not a climate expert, so I don't really feel the need to critically examine the issue when huge scientific bodies like the IPCC and others proclaim MCGW to be 90% certain. Frankly, 90% certain is more than enough to take action. Fortunately, there is a climate expert on the board who can help us all out.

As for the NAS quote, its not saying anything significantly different than the IPCC.

[/ QUOTE ]

What ever happened to the scientific method? Your reasoning here isn't anything like the scientific method in making conclusions. Yet you want to basically have people spend alot of money (anything green seems to always cost more money) on something that is basically at the hypothesis stage IMO. The climate models are unproven and I find it laughable to the point of absurdity that anyone can vouch for these models being gospel when we're modeling something as complex as the climate and the models are in their early stages of development.

One thing that we do have experience with and know very well, the special interests that stand to benefit from laws that are passed in the name of solving the problem of "climate change" are lining up at the trough. Laws that we have no idea or proof of that they'll do a bit of good regarding "climate change."

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually this is completely wrong. The scientific method is in full force here. No one got up one day and proclaimed climate change and everybody just said "sounds good". Data has been trickling in for decades. This data has slowly but surely persuading the leaders in the field, until we are at a point where it is now the consensus.


Now time is forcing us to act. SO we can either go with the consensus of the experts and take action or do nothing. If your a poker player how do you advocate the latter?


Must I remind you that we went to the moon only on untested theories, that the majority of experts in the field believed to be accurate. There was still a minority stating it was impossible. Yet Kennedy forced the Scientists into action and their theories where proven correct. Now time is forcing a similar situation, but the stakes are much, much higher.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're a big boy and can discuss directly. I would like your comments on the NAS quote. Would you agree that it clearly states that there is no definitive link between human activity and global warming?

[/ QUOTE ]
I really can't. I'm not a climate expert, so I don't really feel the need to critically examine the issue when huge scientific bodies like the IPCC and others proclaim MCGW to be 90% certain. Frankly, 90% certain is more than enough to take action. Fortunately, there is a climate expert on the board who can help us all out.

As for the NAS quote, its not saying anything significantly different than the IPCC.

[/ QUOTE ]

What ever happened to the scientific method? Your reasoning here isn't anything like the scientific method in making conclusions. Yet you want to basically have people spend alot of money (anything green seems to always cost more money) on something that is basically at the hypothesis stage IMO. The climate models are unproven and I find it laughable to the point of absurdity that anyone can vouch for these models being gospel when we're modeling something as complex as the climate and the models are in their early stages of development.

One thing that we do have experience with and know very well, the special interests that stand to benefit from laws that are passed in the name of solving the problem of "climate change" are lining up at the trough. Laws that we have no idea or proof of that they'll do a bit of good regarding "climate change."

[/ QUOTE ]

Adios, Dr. William Gray is the most distinguished climate change skeptic with experience in forcasting yet his performance lately has been ranked as "the bottom of the barrel".

http://tinyurl.com/ywp8c3

If you can point me in the direction of a climate change skeptic that can predict hurricanes as accurately as climate change models then I will listen to you. Until you accomplish this, your claims of "unproven models" aren't going to hold a lot of water.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

The Nobel Peace Prize has been a joke for a long time...
Yassar Arafat's win was the final nail in the coffin of a once prestigious prize.

Now how exactly is warming = to bringing peace?
Answer: Absolutely no direct relationship. But supposedly educated men think they can predict future wars based on algore's nonsense......er yeah...
This award is a joke and algore is a joke....

There is ZERO difference between a primitive witch doctor who thinks his incantations can cause rain and algore and his belief that cement factories will warm the earth.... The phrase "even a blind squirrel can find an acorn part of the time" aptly describes algore and the rest of his luney MCGW cult followers.... They just need to shut their eyes and say;
"The medieval warming period and the ice age never happen..."
"The medieval warming period and the ice age never happen..."
"The medieval warming period and the ice age never happen..."
"The medieval warming period and the ice age never happen..."
Ahhhhh....but they did Al..... They did happen....

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Adios, Dr. William Gray is the most distinguished climate change skeptic with experience in forcasting yet his performance lately has been ranked as "the bottom of the barrel".

http://tinyurl.com/ywp8c3<br />
[/ QUOTE ]
hmmm....interesting how the article skips 2006. Please wacki, remind us how many hurricanes there were in 2006 and how many the models predicted.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

That would be a big FAT ZERO!!!!
Yes, those climate models are goooooooooooooooood. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Utah]

You brought up the validity of climate models in predicting hurricanes. Please educate us more. We are still waiting for you to tell us about 2006 climate model predictions versus actual number of hurricanes.

[I_am_smrt]

It's just strange, because Al Gore doesn't really work to end world conflict, he works to educate the world about the dangers of global warming... You would think the person they award the Nobel Peace Prize to would work in some way to end some conflict somewhere in the world... So you can see how it's confusing.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
It's just strange, because Al Gore doesn't really work to end world conflict, he works to educate the world about the dangers of global warming... You would think the person they award the Nobel Peace Prize to would work in some way to end some conflict somewhere in the world... So you can see how it's confusing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I read an interesting Tribune Op-Ed piece about this yesterday. Global climate change is definately on the Pentagon's radar screen for its potential to cause war in the future. I must have heard a dozen times that war will be increasingly fought over water and war will be more likely to be fought in areas that dry out because of global warming.

Last year's Peace Prize winner was the guy who started handing out microloans in the 3rd World. This has very little to do directly with peace, but the idea was that reducing poverty would tend to lessen war over time. Global warming has the potential to increase poverty by making once marginal farms barren. Everyone in the MSM like the microloan prize because that guy wasn't identified with an ideology and everyone on this forum liked it because it was a free market solution. The fact that Gore is neither has gotten many of your goats, but his efforts to stop global warming will hopefully pay dividends in the future in stopping war.