Friday, October 12, 2007

OH. MY. GOSH.

As if to prove the worthlessness of the award once and for all, the Nobel Prize was just awarded to AlGore for his fight against climate change. Seems to me it would make more sense if he actually changed the climate. Seems to me it should be given to those who base their beliefs on facts and not specious conclusions which are heavily disputed. Well, they've given the prize to other idiots. This just follows the pattern.

53 comments:

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

1) "They've given the award to other idiots" like Henry Kissinger, whose seat in hell is being held by Augusto Pinochet.

2) Please tell me, Marshall, out of the depth of your knowledge and understanding of climate science, how not just Al Gore, but climatologists in general, are in error. Please give an alternative hypothesis that fits all the disparate data, that is scientifically testable and falsifiable, and that is also predictive within a wonderfully narrow range of statistical inference. Please inform us, Dr. Art (if I may call you that) how your vast experience and knowledge trumps that of those who actually study climate science.

Please refrain from giving the example of a nut-job British judge who points out 9 inconsequential "errors", and onto which critics glom like flies on offal, as if this proves that global warming is not a reality. Please also refrain from impugning Vice President Gore's character, motives, or person or family and stick to the issue at hand.

As islands around the world sink under rising oceans; as glaciers recede faster and faster; as the ice pack at both poles shrinks to near-non-existence; as the average global temperature slips upward every year (I suppose that this doesn't mean the planet is warming, does it . . .) - please, I ask, give us an alternative explanation that fits the facts and is scientific.

Otherwise, I suggest you might remain silent.

Marshall Art said...

Suggest what you like, wise guy. What's with the attitude? You got an itchy rash or something? Lighten up.

Point by point:

1) Are you now in charge of deciding who goes to hell? When did God promtoe you? Are you indicating I'm some big Hank fan?

2) There have been plenty of knowledgable people, including climatologists, that have disputed the findings of the Goracle. Perhaps you can show why they are wrong. The point here is that just like in every other discussion, you choose to believe what you want, and I choose to listen to others. Neither of us are qualified to judge with any certainty whatsoever the data put before us. But as you obviously worship AlGore as if he's a substitute for the Trinity, I guess every fart that emanates from his ass is gospel. If want to believe there is no disagreement amongst scientists as to whether or not the Gore-ites are on the right track, you're free to be so stupid. (see? I can do the attitude thing, too. Here comes more...)

What evidence do you have that the British judge is a nut-job? From your vast knowledge and experience, how is he unqualified to judge the blatherings of a guy who has yet to get over the fact that he couldn't convince his own state to put him in the Oval Office? His character and motives have been exposed by his own pronouncements and double talk over the years. So his person is ripe and legitimate a target for the ridicule he so richly deserves. As to his family, who cares? I was with Tipper on the record thing.

Have you seen these islands and measured their sinking? How about the glaciers and the poles? Were you around, say, 500 years ago to measure them then? Do you really think it's unusual for global temperature averages to rise and fall over time for reasons other than man-made reasons? What of reports of warming on Mars, for example? How are we involved with that as it's happening at the same time?

Here's all we, as regular joes, know for sure: when the scientific community speaks, we are best served to wait and see since they have a track record of changing their tune.

I tend to believe that as we are told how insignificant we are in the universe, that it seems strange that we now have the power to cause such cataclismic damage simply by driving around, using hairspray, and producing products for people everywhere. If that's the case, the ten years Gore claims we have left to change things around seem to be inadequate compared to the dire predictions with which he breaks the wind.

This butthead is simply trying to create a crisis for which he can be the savior. Don't be such a chuckleheaded sap.

Marshall Art said...

One other thing,

In the timeframe given to save us from total environmental annihilation, how does the mighty Goracle propose we convince countries like China to get with the program in time? We have shown good progress in reducing our emissions (aside from Gore's own speech) than do most of the Kyoto signers. Yet, just like with the war, it is us toward whom the alarmists like Gore point his rhetoric. He's an idiot amongst idiots and you seem smart enough to see it for yourself.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Wow, Marshall, you managed to everything but what I asked you to do, which is offer an alternative to the theory of human induced global warming. As for Kissinger's seat in hell - considering the dossier against him from the betrayal of Lyndon Johnson and the carpet bombing of North Vietnam and mining of Haiphong harbor (which resulted in the sinking of a Soviet naval vessel; oops) to the murder of the democratically elected President of Chile and the imposition of a fascist regime there, along with helping to form Operation Condor - the work of the "intelligence agencies" of Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina - to assassinate dissidents (including a car-bombing in Washington, DC) - I do believe the record speaks for itself. Now, if you have evidence to offer in Henry's defense, such as the mitigating circumstance that he might be a sociopath, why, I'm willing to listen.

As for the substantive issue of Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize, you ask me to lighten up? All I've done is ask for an alternative scientific theory. I haven't asked for your opinion on Gore's character, or the possible motives behind Gore pushing a warning about global warning (something no one is really qualified to do). In fact, I asked you not to do those things, and just offer an alternative. Since you can't seem to do that, perhaps silence might be in order.

Again, I just asked a simple question - can you offer a scientific explanation that explains the evidence? Yes or no? If so, what is it?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Also, I'm not a . . . what was it? "chuckleheaded sap". This isn't about me, or you, or Gore. It's about the science. I'm still waiting . . .

Marshall Art said...

I couldn't give a flyin' rat's ass about Kissinger. My point was that you condemned him to hell when you don't have that authority. If you want to speculate that hell is a likely destination, I might be inclined to agree, but from discussions regarding homosexuality, it's clear that condemning is not our job. Isn't that one of the reasons for which you rag on fundies, or am I confusing you with some other misguided liberal Christian?

I asked you to lighten up for the immediate confrontational and condescending tone of your comments. A legitimate request as you'll note by re-reading your own words. Paricularly #2.

You also lack the authority to request my silence on any issue on my own blog. I believe I've not been so bold on yours. But lost in my counter-rag was the implication that the warming is completely natural and cyclical and beyond our capability of greatly impacting it one way or the other. This is an alternative put forth by many in the field, at least not those intimidated by the threats to funding that some have claimed occur.

And how about the rest of MY questions?

Now, if you want to ask simple questions, just do so without all the crapola with which you send it. It makes for a more civil discussion.

BTW, you didn't answer my question regarding the attack on the character of the British judge. Perhaps you can explain why that was alright while insisting I not do the same for Gore.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I haven't condemned anyone to hell. I do believe that Henry has managed to do that all on his lonesome. I merely ticked off the indictment against him, that's all. In any case, I was being metaphorical. I would wish Kissinger in hell, had I the authority. I do believe you need to lighten up a tad, Marshall.

Should you be at all interested (I know you aren't, but I offer it any way), Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler addresses the issue of the British judge. Go read it for yourself.

I am not being presumptuous in requesting silence on a topic on your blog. I am actually asking you to either, in a colloquialism, put up or shut up. You question global warming and impugn the character and motives of an individual whose only crime, it seems to me, is to be concerned about the future of the planet.

I want a theory. I want a consistent, falsifiable theory that not only manages to explain the data, but offer itself as an even better predictor of future data. Right now, there just isn't any, no matter how hard people try.

If you can't do that - if you can't even offer an alternative, but only carry on as if the world were coming to an end because the world recognizes Al Gore's tireless efforts to inform the public of the current and pending problems inherent in global warming, then why comment? The issue isn't Gore's character, his motivations, or anything about him. He won because he has been quite selfless, and tireless in attempting to draw attention to an issue with global implications, including global security implications. Future wars over dwindling resources, whether water supplies or arable land, are indeed problems of war and peace - addressing them by addressing global warming before it gets out of hand would seem to me the very definition of working for peace.

As for what the Chinese might or might not do - basing out actions as a nation-state on the actions of other lawless nations (notice I include the US as a lawless state?) is the hallmark of mindlessness. Kind of like basing our foreign policy in re terrorism on the words of al Qaeda . . .

In other words, whether China gets on board or not should be neither here nor there. We do what is right because it is right, not because any other nation does so. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Marshall Art said...

It is not, particularly since it is already happening in this country as I noted earlier. But, as suggested by other knowledgable people, if our impact on the weather is minimal at best, then our impact as a nation of improving things is less so considering the actions of the rest of the world.

As to the prize, we have both put forth those for whom we feel didn't deserve the award. Thus, it seems to me that, at least in the arena of peace, there's little about which to get aroused when considering to whom they award it and why.

Think about it. They award the prize to Carter for what? Providing the hotel room for Sadat and Begin to meet in? He did not instigate the talks and, in fact, had very little to do with them. Since then, he's been a major suck-up for the Palestinians to the detriment of the Israelis. So he was given a prize for working for his version of peace, a version with which other Jew-haters agree, yet he, personally, accomplished nothing in that regard. A poor recipient.

Kofi Anan has been linked to the UN oil for food scandal. He's been another who has pushed for sanctions and actions against the Israelis who have not struck without being stricken. He is also a poor choice.

Now Gore, who has pushed an agenda that despite his claims, is not supported by any consensus. Indeed some have backed away from his position. He has dismissed any who have put forth counter arguments without any debate as if they are the lunatics simply for disagreeing. If you can't see through this most transparent of politicians, you've got problems. At the same time, you'll bash Bush for far less.

So I don't only object to Gore receiving the prize, I object to the prize itself. The three above were very questionable in their actions, they weren't infallible by any stretch of the imagination and it seems, if you're the right kind of person, you have a leg up on getting the award just for trying.

I want to re-iterate that I don't base my opinions on policy based solely on the actions of other countries. I, too, believe our decisions should be based on what the right thing to do might be. That had nothing to do with my comment. If things are as drastic as your goofball claims they are, then what difference will only our actions make, considering he's the one talking about the fate of the world? You can't dismiss the actions of others when you talk like that.

If I actually get around to reading this Somerby guy, why should I believe what he says is the final say regarding the judge? Does the judge put himself up as a climate expert, or is he basing his opinion on actual experts. Just asking as I don't know. Keep in mind, that most of those on your side of this issue feel it's a done deal. Remember that those on my side of the issue have been compared to Holocaust deniers, as if the issue is as solid. What makes you think he's not just a shill for the cause? Because he agrees with you? I don't need to hear about his sources for info because the MSM isn't quick to offer equal time to those with opposing views. And quite frankly, you guys have a habit of immediately crapping on anything from the right who have to use conservative outlets to get their message out.

Finally (I think), I don't see how someone like Gore can take precedence over others for a peace prize, when his cause is largely only a possibility rather than the reality current conflicts are. If you're going to posit the notion that he's receiving this award for the possible conflicts surrounding depleated resources, that's akin to saying he's getting the award for all his work to protect us from space invaders. I think it's reasonable to assume that he received it because he's Algore, the Oslo people like him and what he says, and they tend to like lefties in general. (my opinion, with no data to support it other than watching)

Marshall Art said...

As it happens, Geoffrey, I just stumbled upon this through another blog. It's not as long as it appears, and it is just a taste of what the opponents are saying and who they are.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22579885-663,00.html

Let me know if there's a problem getting to the article. I'm not good at setting up links.

Erudite Redneck said...

Crap. MA. You ju.st slapped around what many of the living human beans in this country believe 1., is a damn site more informed than most of us, 2., got shafted, at least by circumstances, in the 200 election, 3., is worthy of the benefit of the doubt, 4., is admired the world over but, like most prophets, find his biggest opposition in his own country -- and you were asked, angrily, by one of his supporters, to put up or shut up.

And this is all you can come up with? You're good at slingin' words, man. At using them to craft rhetotic, not so much.

Oh, wth:

Jimmy Carter for president.

Hillary Clinton for Carter's first appointment to SCOTUS.

William Jefferson Clinton for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, or U.N. secretary-general, next time it's possible.

Biden for Sedcretary of State.

Richardson for Interior.

Rubin back at Treasury.

Kucinich for the Department of Prace, and I'm dead serious; maje it a Cabinet post.

Dr. Phil for Surgeon General -- what the hell. :-)

That's just off the top of my head. :-)

Marshall Art said...

Are you hittin' the Dickel, Er?

Look, I just threw out one set of "deniers", but they are hardly the only ones. I've seen a couple of books and a British documentary that has contradicted Gore & friends.

But it really doesn't matter, does it? Whether I reproduce a litany of experts and type out their entire points of view, or just put a link, it's the same freakin' story; "And this is all you can come up with?"

So what good would it do? The fact of the matter is that Gore could say the dinosaurs are coming and you guys would just take his word for it. You don't want to hear the opposing views, and when hearing them you won't give them the same respect as the views of the Gore people.

And this guy's personality and character ARE suspect and SHOULD be examined whenever he proclaims anything. I recall seeing a comparison of his rhetoric. It might have been back when Limbaugh had his TV show, I don't recall. But the point of it was to show him saying one thing now to one group of people, and then showing him saying the exact opposite previously to another group of people. The one that sticks out to me is Gore speaking of the evils of tobacco and using the illness with which his sister suffered (typical lib exploitation--they can't resist), and then telling tobacco growers how he planted the seeds, harvested the crop, hung the leaves and all the other stuff of the process. Basically, he's a liar and an opportunist.

Before the 2000 election, I saw a PBS documentary on both candidates. For PBS, it was pretty balanced. It showed how Gore wanted to head off questions regarding his youthful drug use. So he admits to trying dope like many did in his day. Turns out, as they interviewed college roommates and friends, he was a freakin' stoner party boy, much like that which Bush is often accused. Gore even tried to get one of them to tell anyone who asked that he only tried it a few times at most. The dude was stand-up and wouldn't lie for him.

So why don't one of YOU guys, tell me just what this man has accomplished that makes you and foreigner boobs so enamored with his intellect. A smart guy should realize that in the 21st century, if you're going to shoot your mouth off, that it's probably going to be recorded and/or video-taped.

And by the way, an inconvenient truth was a freakin' campaign film no matter what that Herbert dude thinks. Gore wants a shot and he's waitin' to be drafted to run. He loves hearing people chant "Run, Al. Run!" I wish he'd run away.

Mark said...

Wow, How Geoffrey can consign someone, anyone to Hell is beyond my comprehension. Why? Because he doesn't believe there is a Hall, by his own admission.

Mark said...

I don't understand the connection between the fable of Global warming and peace, anyway.

Marshall Art said...

Well, Mark. The deal is that should such a situation take place, those areas where it has the most severe impact would possibly lead to violence over more greatly limited resources. But of course, that assumes that the negative impact of global warming would be world-wide and not spotty, with other areas actually benefitting from the warming.

Mark said...

In my lifetime, I've seen cold winters and warm summers. I've seen warm winters and cold summers. I've seen mild winters and summers. I've seen harsh winters and summers. they don't follow any sort of pattern. They are just typical cyclical climate changes, usually brought on by the jet stream and sunpot activity.

By my own observation over 55 years, Global warming is a myth. Not even a believable myth.

Here is my hypotheses on how the idea of global warming came about:

Someone somewhere walked out of his house one unusually warm winter day, and decided that something catastrophic is happening on the planet to create such an unusual condition. After a little thought, this someone came up with the theory of global warming and thereafter, looked to find any kind of scientific support to prove his theory, however tenuous the connection, much like the Darwinists do today.

Mark said...

Oh and by the way, just how imminent is the supposed danger from the average mean temperature rising a whole .7 of a degree over a hundred years?

If we, through appeasement and surrender, allow terrorists to strike at will, there will be no world left for the temperature to affect in 1,000 years or so.

Can anybody explain how temperatures rising .7 of a degree over 100 years poses a greater threat than terrorism? Anyone? Anyone?

ELAshley said...

At the top GK-S said: "out of the depth of your knowledge and understanding of climate science, how not just Al Gore, but climatologists in general, are in error."


Allow me to quote in FULL Eleutheros over at Dan's Blog who, more often than not, sides with Dan and Co. ....

"Michael [said]: "The other 1/2 of the Prize went to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the thousands of scientists around the world who toiled to bring about the consensus reports. Nothing junk about THEIR science."

"That's right! How can thousands of scientists simultaneously be wrong.

"OK, there's the criticism, might as well get it out in the open, that the "thousands" of scientist were bits and quips from thousands of papers and reports written by those scientists and the IPCC went cherry picking through the data much as Dan does the Bible and a great many of those scientists remonstrated that they said no such thing and came to no such conclusions.

"Even at that, just look at the heavy guns the Panel has in its camp. Scientists who unequivocally said climate change was due to human activity. I mean just look at the top people on that list!

Dr. Nir Shaviv - Israel

Dr. Chris de Freitas - Universty of Auckland, NZ.

Dr. Claude Allegre - France

Dr. Bruno Wiskel - University of Alberta

Dr. David Evans - Australia

Dr. Tad Murty - Canadia Fisheries

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy Durham university

Meteorolgist Dr. Reid Bryson, University of Wisconsin

Economist E. J. Labohm

Dick Thoenes chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society.

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa.



"Just how are these, the most knowledgeable and informed climate scientists in the world ALL wrong about the human cause of climate change??

"Wait .... ah .... it seems EVERY ONE of these scientists have recanted their position. ALL of the now say they were mistaken about the human causes of climate change with many of them calling it hype and bogus.

"And for good reason. Since the original hype scientists have considered such as the following:

"Temperature recording devices that were once in outlying and rural areas were taken over by urban sprawl and the data they collect is tainted.

"The ice caps on Mars are receding at about the same rate as they are on Earth, due, as they now conclude, to solar activity.

"As the glaciers have retreated in the Alps, they revealed silver mines with the tools neatly stacked where the miners had intended to return in the spring, but the advancing glacier in prehistory had covered it until now.

"The extant navigational rutters describing how to sail from Norway to Greenland used a northern rout with land navigation points from 1000 to about 1200. After that the route was more southernly and used ice features as navigational points.

"And the growing list goes on and on. In the sober light of day a very great many of the scientists that first signed onto the man-made global warming hype have recanted based on better information and evidence to the contrary."

Marshall Art said...

OOH! Nicely done!

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Mark - I consigned no one to hell. I was speaking both figuratively and hopefully. Apparently, you understand neither, a trait you have displayed before, even though you claimed otherwise when called on it.

I find this kind of thing funny, actually. A bunch of people sitting around whining about how horrible it is a guy gets an internationally recognized prize for - what? Attempting to educate people to action to save the planet from a problem that no one nation, no one group, can solve on its own. Almost every word I have read against Gore getting the Peace Prize has centered on an envy and spite that is so palpable, you can smell it.

Mark - you can't imagine what global warming has to do with peace? Apparently you had no idea that right now, in Africa, there are wars being fought over resources. Imagine the threat of millions of refugees from flooded, starved, desertified nations swarming the planet, looking for a place to rest. Imagine the economic dislocation caused the destruction of arable land in the United States, Argentina, and Australia. If you can't imagine that, then you're not paying attention.

It is one thing to disagree with a person's politics - I can understand that. It is another thing to scorn anything associated with this person precisely because it is associated with this person. Children do that.

Marshall Art said...

The attacks on Gore's character are bonus, Geoffrey. But there isn't a whole lot to say about the "deniers" because, as I'm not holding any degrees or certificates in the field, you'll simply have to look at the people who are refuting the alarmism and see what they're saying. It feels like you never have before. So for every piece of "evidence" for GW, like the snow on a mountain, for example, there have been two explanations, and you've decided to buy into Gore's list.

Now we on this side, see the Gore angle all the time because that's what gets publicized the most. Part of the reason for that is that Gore is the guy saying it.

But then when you add the character of the man to the issue, it adds more suspicion for those aware of and molded by his past record, and that heightens the motivation to examine what his side is saying. It's hard to get around who the guy is who's talking and or how him doing the talking taints the info he imparts. The info gets checked out BECAUSE of who's talking.

But the issue really is the award. His info is suspect and so is he. Against the choices that could have been made for this award, he has the least accomplisment or sacrifice for peace. He, as a recipient, is indeed right and ripe for scrutiny. He, as a spokesperson for a cause, invites scrutiny. Having scrutinized, he is found woefully lacking.

Parklife said...

"Mark - you can't imagine what global warming has to do with peace?"

And neither does the Pentagon.. But.. what do they know.

"So for every piece of "evidence" for GW, like the snow on a mountain, for example, there have been two explanations, and you've decided to buy into Gore's list."

Perhaps MA.. in your world global warming is just some quaint notion. But, you really need to get up to speed on the right wing talking points. While.. yes.. in the past they have denied global warming (btw, I think you guys call it 'climate change').. the freaked out conservatives have moved the bar. Now they just think global warming is not man made. Works for me. I mean.. what could humans possibly have to do with a change in anything?

The "deniers" are getting more and more lonely. The likes of CitiGroup, Duke Energy, Rupert Murdoch... ect. ect... see this as a man made disaster, you and Mark seem more and more crazy. Essentially the two of you have chosen to prescribe to (yet another) antiquated version of reality. Most troubling is the deniers have declared war not only on Mr. Gore. But, they have declared war on science. They have degraded the very institution that we are going to need the most in the years to come.

Marshall Art said...

Personally, I don't believe you are correct in saying that the right never believed there was warming occurring. All I've ever heard were protests as to Gore's alarmist pronouncements, that no one was buying the man-made aspects of it, that no one bought the "consensus" angle, that no one thought the ramifications as anywhere near as dire as advertised. So that's pretty much just lefties re-writing recent history.

GW, that is GW as preached by Gore, is not, to me, a quaint notion. It's a ploy to attract attention to himself. An attempt to paint himself as the one to lead us from the disaster he claims is forthcoming should we not follow his advice, which he doesn't follow himself (carbon credits my ass).

Parklife said...

"I don't believe you are correct in saying that the right never believed there was warming occurring."

You.. MA.. You used the term "deniers" in the context of global warming. How difficult is this? Further, I can remember Rush Limbaugh rambling on about what a crock global warming was in the early 90s. Whatever.

As for you and the rest of the rightwing. I'm not even sure what you're point is anymore. You just dont like Gore? Or science? Or.. is this war on Gore just something to prove to everybody that he is, in fact, (wait for it...) a politician (the horror!!)? Worse.. he wants to be president? Imagine the nerve of such a person. All that ambition. Just who does this leftist this he is.. It seems on one hand you think global warming is a problem. Then, when it comes to action (you know, doing something about a problem), its just something not to worry about?

The most interesting part of global warming is the religious rightwing. How in the world can a person be connected to God and not be connected to the earth? More concrete, more strip malls, more consumption.. Is this what following G-o-d is all about? We create this artificial way of living. Then wonder why we have lost our connection to the big guy.

mom2 said...

More concrete, more strip malls, more consumption.. Is this what following G-o-d is all about? We create this artificial way of living. Then wonder why we have lost our connection to the big guy.> from Parklife

And you partake of none of this, I assume in order to be able to point your finger at "right wingers".
When Gore lives in a modest home and drives small vehicles like I do, that is when I will pay more attention to what he says. Also, if his bank account is like mine, he cannot purchase carbon credits and I know I have a lot to learn, but what the hay is the good that is doing?

Marshall Art said...

Parklife,

You don't really pay attention, do you? Even though there's so much in print, where you can go back and review and make sure you know what was said, you still don't pay attention.

I use the term "deniers", generally in quotes, simply for the ease of identification. The label came from the wacky left, in their typical tactic of demonizing those with opposing views. So my usage of the term is plainly a sarcastic slight against your side of the issue. The people to whom I refer are far more than mere deniers, but people who'd know.

As for Rush, I doubt you could find a quote that suggest anything other than the fact that he doesn't buy into the alarmism of the greenies, and now, the Gore-ites. The term "global warming" was THE catch-phrase that implied the Goracle version of the cause, not merely the warming. To say, "I don't believe that global warming crap!" is to say that one doesn't buy into Al's message.

You never knew what the point has been, so I'll be happy to flesh it out for you. Feel free to take notes:

There are basically two points:

1. The Gore version of the cause of GW is false, exaggerated, overblown, crap, based on poor or stacked science.

2. Gore is an asshole.

Point one is what the hooplah is really all about. There have been enough detractors, retractors, and counter arguments. The issue is far from settled, though the fact that Gore has lead the charge is all a lefty needs to know.

Point two is equally, if not more important than the first. As I stated earlier, Gore has a recorded history of pandering of the worst sort, overstating his case, and downright lying. He did not take his loss in 2000 well, and it seems to taint his every move and utterance. He loves this issue for it's safety politically. It's hard to f**k it up since it's too difficult to nail down in terms of whether his position is true or whether his recommended actions have any effect. Credit can easily be taken where none is owed. Blame can easily be sidestepped if any is delivered. It's the perfect issue for appearing to be doing something. It doesn't bear the risks and dangers of fighting a real threat, like religious fanatics willing to murder fellow Americans. He's very John Kerry-like in his willingness to appear to be one of courage, without really putting his ass on the line. Yeah, he's ambitious just like every other politician. But ambition without substance is worthless and not especially beneficial to the voters.

You assume way too much to think that the right is unconcerned with the environment. We have kids and families, too. We don't want tainted foods, water or air. But as this country is doing very well with considering the environment, we don't see the need to risk jobs or risk the economy for the sake of lefties who want to appear to be doing something.

hashfanatic said...

Okay, I've finally reviewed the bulk of the "Inconvenient Truth" info...

My question is this.

What IF his entire theory about global warming, climate change, etc., turns out to be a complete crock of shit?

(Progressive friends, do not scoff...it would not be the first time in history such a hoax was bought hook, line, and sinker, and Al Gore is not God...)

What, then, are we collectively to do? Go back to being wasteful, not being open to new ideas like solar panels, etc., that could save us money anyway?

We're supposed to be the stewards of the Earth. Now, all environmental issues have been totally politicized, and everyone just seems anxious to politicize and promote their own cliche's agenda.

Every time you happen upon a new hybrid car owner these days, they go on about global warming, when, a year ago, wanting to save money and be freer from foreign oil was enough of a compelling reason.

I miss the good old days, where you could find a conservative who actually thought saving and conserving resources was a GOOD thing.

If this continues, who will be left to challenge Gore on legitimate questions regarding his positions, and remain objective and believable?

This is all extremely dangerous, and a lot of folks are forgetting that something that seems to be backed up by nature itself could be a very convenient device to get us to surrender even more of our freedoms (I've heard there is talk in England of setting limits on how many kilometers per year each citizen may travel).

The whole climate change issue is very complicated on many different levels, and no one should trust any one authority on any of it before even more thorough research can be completed and dissected, and we all have time to examine all the angles without the partisan yammering.

We can't just run from it, either.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Hashfanatic makes some astute observations. Quite unlike Marshall's last comment which, were one to take the time, collapses pretty much every lie about Al Gore in to one convenient, easy-to-read-and-access place.

Marshall - should you even care about the way things really are, you would check out The Daily Howler, which has spent the past eight years debunking everything you wrote about Al Gore. You want to call him an asshole? Fine. You want to think he's a self-promoting panderer that believes in nothing but himself? Fine.

Back it up with information that's not factually inaccurate, though. Since you have already stated that you have no desire to read the Howler, or any other site that actually deals in the real world, I doubt you will take my advice. I offer it, though, on the slim chance you might be willing to actually listen to an alternative point of view - and one based in reality, not the fantasy world you spin around here.

I believe, for what that belief is worth, that Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize as a political swipe at the Bush Administration, just as I believe Jimmy Carter received it for the same reasons. I also believe it was deserved for the work both men have done, and continue to do, promoting peace, justice, and a better future. Just because you think the politics is wrong doesn't negate the accomplishments of both men. You disagree with them. But, again, you ignore the facts of the real accomplishments both have achieved simply because of blind loyalty to an ideology that adheres to a false vision of the world.

Marshall Art said...

I believe the Howler deals with what you believe to be the real world, but I don't believe it has the unbiased slant you believe it has. I'm quite sure I'd be reading what you've been saying all this time.

Neither Gore nor Carter has done all that much that they should be considered for the award, unless making up scary stories about the weather counts, or walking around saying we need peace counts. I don't see their efforts as being standouts worthy of such awards.

Hash's observations ignore the fact that good people are good stewards anyway and that good people were already making improvements that have manifested good results. Gore's points are crap whether people care or not. The environmental conscience of the general population does not nag any more or less based on the emanations of an Al Gore alone.

There indeed is the need to politicize the issue if environmentalists are looking for political help in achieving their goals. And when such things are decided on behalf of the people, with their money usually, it is the right and duty to examine what is being proposed and support or fight against it as is necessary.

blamin said...

Marshall,

Thank you for a very “telling” debate.

You raised many excellent points that were either “poo-pawed” or summarily dismissed by your detractors. Yes there was some artful “spin” by some, but they never really attempted to answer your serious questions.

Oh ya, many attempted to get “snarky”while ignoring the points you raised, all the while assuming a superior attitude with very little to support the same.

There are oh so many issues to study in modern political debate. There is no way to practically become informed on all the issues (that is if you have a full time job and a family to that needs your time).

I always tell my children to observe the debate, in political disagreements. Sooo much can be gleamed by simply studying the actions and most especially the reactions to a particular subject.

All I can say is ”well done” as usual!!!

Parklife said...

"As for Rush, I doubt you could find a quote that suggest anything other than the fact that he doesn't buy into the alarmism of the greenies, and now, the Gore-ites."

"In his (Rush Limbaugh's) book, See, I Told You So (1993), he begins the topic of global warming as follows:

Despite the hysterics of a few pseudo-scientists, there is no reason to believe in global warming"

oh.. and this:

"I don't believe there is any conclusive evidence of global warming"

Yes MA.. you have a point. It took me a little over a min. to find those quotes. I guess we're back to the term "deniers". Good luck with that.

"Point two is equally, if not more important than the first."

Honestly.. this is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Even for you righwingers.. This is out there. You value a personal opinion of somebody more than the actual facts. Geoffrey has you pegged (once again).

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I'm flattered, Parklife. I have an additional post, today, Mon., 10/21/07, on those crazy radical, America-hating, industry-hating lefties at the World Bank and their part in the conspiracy to destroy western civilization by promoting the "myth" (in Mark's word) of global warming. As I say over there, who are you going to believe, a blogger from Chicago or a bunch of development economists?

I report, you decide.

Oh, and by the way, Marshall. Since you refuse to consider evidence (you dismiss The Daily Howler without even giving it a glance) I really think the point is moot - argument is about presenting evidence. You refuse to actually consider factual matters, other than those you get regurgitated to you from right-wing websites and (?)radio(?), I think this isn't about "arguing" as much as it is trying to bully people.

Al-Ozarka said...

"an alternative to the theory of human induced global warming"

I've got an exceptional alternative, Dude!

Nature!

Does that compute?

Doubt it!

Marshall Art said...

Exactly, Geoffrey. It's obscene the way the Gore-side bullies their opponents, with funding at risk if you see things differently, or comparing the opposition to Holocaust deniers, or even accusing us of not reviewing the "facts". But then, this is the M.O. of the left in all debate.

For example, in your case, you create a post to mock me with a "list" of points one is likely to encounter here at Marshall Art's. Honesty would dictate that you would post a disclaimer saying it's your opinion of what I mean, rather than actual quotes. This tactic taints the discussion with your own personal opinion, which heavily influences those too lazy to actually hit the link.

I'm flattered that you would think me capable of amongst all else with which I contend in my life, that I would take the time to "examine the evidence". The context of such phrases indicates either I work side by side with actual researchers to glean my knowledge, or that I read articles or listen to the words of such people. If he means the latter, then yes, I've spent some time. I guess because I can't, won't or don't name them, my opinions are worthless. But then when I do provide something, it is dismissed as one-sided, the inference being that only he is capable of rendering perfectly balanced and un-biased support. At the same time, it is never explained why this disparity is true.

It isn't my side that's doing the bullying.

Marshall Art said...

Al-Ozarka said:

""an alternative to the theory of human induced global warming"

I've got an exceptional alternative, Dude!

Nature!"

A more succint and to-the-point alternative cannot be found.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

It's like a fun house over here. Only without an exit.

Marshall Art said...

Oh, you know where the door is.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

That was a reference to No Exit, by Jean-Paul Sartre. In this play, hell is imagined as a place in which human relationships, broken by lying and never to be consummated desire, is embodied in other human beings. Of course, the room where the three unrequited lovers are trapped has no door, thus "No Exit".

In other words, I was saying this place is hell, Marshall.

mom2 said...

Geoffrey, you are so kind. :-)

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

No more hellish than visiting a place where one finds one's position misrepresented. I'd have expected you'd find enough to debate regarding my actual words and meaning, but if making shit up is easier, go for it.

But I make this statement for your benefit: The next time I read of scientists and researchers dismissing the Gore version of warming, or hear their words in an interview on the radio, I'll be sure to save the info so as to satisfy your demands, as if my not having them handy right now somehow proves there's no opposing data. You'll dismiss them with attacks on their credibility, that's your style, but I've come to expect as much from you.

blamin said...

Point, counter point,.

I always wondered why the “if you don’t agree with me you’re an idiot” argument is used so much. I’m still wondering…

Geoffrey, I’m still waiting for a legitimate, substantive counter point. I appreciate your literary references (being a amateur literary appreciatannado), but quoting Lit does not always automatically give you a “buy”.

Marshall, you bring the “common” mans argument so succinctly.

Back to the original post.

This prize means nothing, except to those that are looking for verification. Let me repeat - verification!. Past history, as so eloquently put forth previously, shows the fallacy of assigning importance to this award. Which is very unfortunate there was a time when the NOBEL awards meant something that is before politics became involved.

Oh well, ca-sa-rah-sa-rah, maybe one day we’ll have an award that actually means something to future generations.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

blamin' - counterpoint to what? There is no "point" to counter. There is a denial of the fact of human induced global warming, a dismissal of an internationally recognized award for singular achievement for the cause of peace, and an ignorant attack upon a recipient of that award. All in all, I really don't have anything to say beyond what has already been said.

I wasn't looking for a "buy", which is actually a "bye", but perhaps you were thinking I was looking for an "in", or an "out", or some other preposition? And it's "que sera, sera".

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

Grow up. You're engaging in the same demogogery as does your deity, AlGore. He believes that GW is a man-made disaster. Others believe that man contributed to the warming, and still others don't believe man has any chance at having an impact on something so vast as the earth's temperature. Human induced global warming is far from being a fact, except to the alarmists who can't really see or hear the truth with their heads buried so far up Gore's backside.

Unlike the other Nobel awards, which are decided by experts in the field for which it is given, the award for peace is a purely political award given by politicians who, at present, are lefties. Who else would give a peace award to a thug like Yasser Arafat? Should the body become more conservative, you'll see it reflected in who gets the peace award. It's meaningless.

If there's any ignorance, it's in the Gore-ites who sit panting like lap dogs at the feet of the amazing Goracle. He's a legitimate target of mockery for his past doublespeak, his current lunatic rantings regarding the current president, and the over-the-top and overblown predictions, some of which were disputed by the co-recipient of the coveted, but worthless, award.

Here's a couple of others who've disputed the Gore version of GW:

-Fred Singer, author of "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years", PHD in physics from Princeton, pioneer developer of rocket and satellite technology, President of the Science & Environmental Policy Project.

-Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute

-John Christy & Roy Spencer, winners of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Achievement for their work using satellites for gathering temperature data. They are both former members of the IPCC, and one of these guys had to threaten to sue them to remove his name from the list of supporters of the human induced warming. (The IPCC denies that the threat was made, or that it affected their decision to remove the name.)

In finding these names, because, as you know, my opinion isn't worth shit without offering some evidence, I found it notable to learn that the IPCC people who rendered the report last spring are largely NOT scientists themselves, though they do consort with scientists, but are mostly activists, Greenpeace folk, etc.

True or not, the point is that there are plenty of those who are knowledgable and heavily dispute the conclusions of the almighty Gore. And no, they insist they do not work for oil companies. One of them, I believe is was Singer, admitted one grant from an oil company, but it was negligible compared to the total amount of funds he's received. In addition, it was suggested that the main foe of the lefty wackos is coal for the emissions when burned. The oil companies would love for coal to be trashed as it would raise the value of oil as an energy source. Unintended consequences of lefty activity is not uncommon.

I will continue to offer more "deniers" as I find them. At some point, I'll take the time to learn to create hyperlinks for ease of education. Until then, and upon further consideration, yes, you may call me Dr. Art.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I could do the same thing, a give a long list of individuals with seemingly impressive credentials who are evolution-deniers. They are educated, some have advanced degrees, teach at elite universities, and all of them deny not just Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian) evolutionary theory, but the very fact of evolution.

Having credentials, and degrees, and positions of influence in education does not make you right. The names and titles of those who support a particular scientific theory does not make it correct. Science makes a theory unfalsified. Data, testing, experiment, the rigorous examination of method - all the things that go to make up the scientific enterprise give a theory formal and productive validity.

These people are not silenced by some cabal of sinister liberals who want to destroy western technological civilization. Those who refuse to work within the framework of the theory of human-induced global warming are not shut out of scientific debates and journal publications because their politics are wrong. They receive little attention, and are not heeded because they do not meet the rigorous standards for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and they refuse to offer theories sufficient to explain so much disparate data as an alternative. It's really that simple.

Marshall Art said...

"Data, testing, experiment, the rigorous examination of method..."

I know you spend countless hours doing so.

Give it a rest. The fact of the matter is that you are unwilling to give the same attention to the Gore opponents as you are to Gore. You have absolutely no idea which of the opponents are credible because you don't give them any credibility to begin with. Singer offers tons of explanations based on real science and observation. You are simply guilty of the very intolerance of which you accuse conservatives and fundamentalists. So until you give the same study to the opponents, it is simply a case of you choosing sides based on your belief in Gore and his "consensus". It's really that simple.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

First, in response to your somewhat ad hominem attack, no I do not spend time doing science because . . . I am not a scientist. This does not mean I do not understand science, or that I am incapable of comprehending what is and is not good scientific work. It just means that I am not a professional who spends his time "doing" science. I am an educated scientific layperson.

Why should I "give my time" to those who are not capable of passing peer review for publication? Once again - this isn't about Al Gore (and, no, Gore isn't my "god"; he's a good person being smeared by ignoramuses for doing the hard grunt work of educating the public about a looming threat to the entire planet) or any other individual. It is about the issue of global warming. It is all too easy for some such as yourself to make it about Gore - a kind of anti-cult of personality. You get to make fun of someone who is smart, occasionally witty, works hard, and deals with a complex issue in ways that are both interesting and easy to understand, and by implication do to the theory of global warming what you do to him - dismiss it all as irrelevant nonsense.

Luckily, science doesn't work that way in the real world. Even were Gore as horrible a person as you and others on the right suggest, it would not more invalidate the science than pointing out Einstein's less than stellar parenting skills or Werner Heisenberg's Nazi sympathies invalidate the theory of relativity or the theory of quantum mechanics. We are most fortunate that science is a much more rigorous pursuit than politics.

Marshall Art said...

But we delude ourselves when we assume that every scientist, that every agenda from them, is pure and without corruption of any kind. You dismiss the opponents without a look by saying they aren't peer reviewed. Well, does such a review confirm without shadow of doubt the fact of the claims made? Of course not. But if you're insistent that a point of view is legitimate, nothing can persuade, particularly if one doesn't listen.

Once again, as you do with every debate, you've taken the tack of accusing me of that which isn't true. Like in the abortion debate, wherein you accuse me of basing all on my ideology rather than the factual data I presented, you've now decided that my opposition to man-made GW is due to my dislike of Gore. Not true. Not at all. My opposition is due to the inanity of the proposition, that we have, in THIS case, the power to affect what is otherwise presented as that which makes us insignificant. That the planet is so freaking fragile that what car I drive makes such a difference or that by changing light bulbs that it will have any impact whatsoever. That our country, which has already succeeded in cleaning up our act significantly, is the major culprit in this imagined disaster to come.

My dislike and distrust of Gore is a separate issue but is conjoined by the fact that HE'S the goon pretending that what he says is true, that it isn't disputed by even those who agree with the underlying premise. You've set the bar for yourself pretty low by your worship of him and the character and abilities you believe he possesses. Yeah, he's smart allright. So smart he couldn't convince his own state to vote for him, even with the glory of the Clinton years upon which he rode.

Now, I have a hot date with the Mrs, so I have to go. Just remember to deal with what is said, because you continue to prove your inability to discern underlying intent.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

What possible agenda, nefarious or otherwise, could lie behind the scientific theory of human-induced global warming? That is the question begged by the assertion in your first sentence, and there is no answer to it that makes any sense whatsoever.

Could it be the end of industrial civilization? Doubtful as most scientists only benefit from the ever-increasing technological prowess of our society. An antipathy to democracy? As most scientists have a liberal bent to their politics, if they have any politics at all, again, doubtful. Some bizarre antipathy to the Bush Administration? Obviously there are reasons for scientists to withhold support from Bush, as his Administration has been singularly hostile to a non-politicized science, i.e., a science not polluted by a narrow, ideological agenda. Scientific reports have been censored, altered, or classified; scientists working for the government have been silenced, and even fired, for speaking out. Whatever stance an individual takes on, say, the Kyoto Protocols, or stem cell research, the deliberate falsification of data and the conclusions of scientific research to advance an agenda that runs counter to the results of actual scientific research should trouble anyone.

I do not think this is a reason for some evil cabal of scientists to invent a theory like global warming - to unseat the Bush Administration. They have earned the antipathy of the scientific community through all sorts of other means.

It is one things to suggest that a scientific theory is wrong. Scientists do it all the time, and go about doing research for alternatives - that is the way it is done. It is another thing all together to suggest some sinister conspiracy among scientists who concoct a phony theory with no data to support it simply to further transient political goals. That is, in fact, what the Bush Administration has been doing since the beginning of its tenure in office, aided by the intellectual dwarf James Inhofe in the United States Senate.

In psychological parlance, this is known as projection - labeling one's adversaries as suffering from the very illness that infects oneself.

Marshall Art said...

So why do you persist? You have no problem suggesting opponents are on the take from oil companies, but apparently, the scientists to whom YOU bow down are as pure as the driven snow. THEY have no agenda, no ideology that drives them, no personal gain at stake. What crap!

Yes, this is far more troubling that what you support, but how you support it. Talk about projection. You've got a whole fantasy world going you believe the words you type. You're insufferable. It's as if you are supporting absolute Christ figures for all the perfection and purity to assign them in comparison to those you dismiss. You are every bit the unyielding, intolerant, robotic wackjob you accuse fundies of being.

Well, I'll tell you what, pal, you can go ahead and believe that your side is made up of only the best quality people of their fields, that they are without blemish, that they are selfless in their devotion to mankind and without care for any personal beliefs as they strive for the absolute truth while being demonized by actual demons from the right. That only shows that "book learnin'" does little to improve common sense. But more than any agenda of those you support is the agenda of yourself in your comic book characterizations of both your side and mine. It's like talking to a child who uses big words.

In the meantime, I prefer to listen to rational people of knowledge who have a more logical and reasonable interpretation of the data regarding the earth's temperature.

The bottom line here is that Gore was awarded a prize and money for raising awareness of something that is heavily disputed, and if we pretend isn't, something that only MIGHT happen at best. Considering other possible candidates for the prize, his receiving it was totally political, totally ideological, and a demonstration of the meaninglessness of the prize.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I bow down to no person, ideology, political faction, or human construct. It is apparently beyond your comprehension that there might be some out there who are not so much pure as they are dedicated professionals doing their jobs to the best of their duties, allowing the chips to fall where they may. Every one has to have an agenda - every one has to take sides - if you aren't for us, you're against us - if you're not with George Bush you're with the terrorists (or in this case, if you're not with George Bush, you are with the anti-capitalist, anti-Western global warming cabal).

In the first place, the world isn't like that. It just isn't and forcing it into that mold destroys any ability to see clearly. This is not to say that I am unsullied by ideology while you are. Why would I make such a ridiculous claim? I am only saying that to insist that one's ideology is as good as any other at interpreting reality is nonsense.

I believe we would both agree that a pure Marxist view of the way the world is would be a perversion, not only an incorrect way of seeing the world, but of living in it. By preferring an ideology, putting pride of place in one's interpretive scheme as it were, one is preferring the interpretive scheme to the myriad facts that intrude, and might just contradict, that ideology. The results, as the history of the Soviet Union suggest, can be catastrophic to human life and society.

By insisting that your ideology offers you a clarity of vision to which I am blind by my allegiance to my own ideology, you claim that I ignore what is plain - there are those who insist that global warming is not an on-going problem, that those who promote it are either dupes of bad science or dissembling plotters with an ulterior motive, viz., the undermining of American industry, science, and civilization.

The problem with this assertion is that it ignores salient facts about the way science works. This is what I have been trying, unsuccessfully it appears, to say - this isn't about political ideology, or a struggle for power, or a clash of worldviews. Science is not perfect, nor is it immune from political manipulation. Yet it does have many-layered protections - redundant checks and balances as it were - to guard against the kinds of manipulations you so casually assume exist.

Those global warming deniers who insist they are shut out of debates, discussions, and publications for nefarious political reasons have made their case. Yet, what evidence have they provided? That they cannot pass peer review for publication should tell us much about who they are, and their "standards"; quite simply put, there are those who work in the field who do get published in distinguished journals because they meet professional standards. These standards exist not for political reasons, but to protect the profession from unwarranted influence.

My sister is a professor of biology, multiply published in several peer reviewed journals, and also has sat on the review board of one. The standards that exist for vetting an article for publication are strict, the process both time-consuming and thorough. Questions of research method, of statistical analysis, of precedent cited, of the structure of the hypothesis offered, sometimes down to the placement of each word within it - all of them are vigorously studied, occasionally challenged, and very often authors are handed their papers and given the suggestion that it might be better if they went back and redid them. The alternative responses are to do the hard work of doing better science, or whine about a conspiracy of dunces bent on destroying wonderful research for their own disreputable ends. Real scientists do the former. Children who get their feelings hurt when they are told they just aren't up to snuff do the latter.

This is what it comes down to. This is the crux of the matter. More than political philosophy - and I cannot imagine wondering about the politics of any given scientist just from reading his or her published works - what is at issue here is what constitutes science and scientific standards. As the latter two are under constant attack precisely for political impurity by an Administration for which everything necessarily serves a very narrow agenda, it seems to me much more likely that those you have cited have simply failed to do sound science. The evidence for the political manipulation of scientific research - not just in the area of global climate change, but in the health sciences, in basic biological research, in energy research, and the like - is both long and easily available if one is willing to read it and accept it (I know from experience that offering you sources of information that might just contradict your view of the world is fruitless; the information is out there, though, all you have to do is want to read it and accept it).

Not everything in this world is political, Marshall. That is the threat posed by science to our political ideologies. By cutting against the grain of our preferences, science forces us to face certain facts, no matter how uncomfortable, and deal with them.

Mark said...

The warmist year on record was 1934. Since 1994, the average mean global temperature has gone DOWN!

Even if there is any truth to the theory of Global warming, it is still not an imminent threat to this planet.

Average mean temperatures rising a mere .7 degrees over a 100 year span is NOT a serious problem.

20 years ago, Time magazine reported that a consensus of scientists had concluded the earth is cooling and a devastating ICE AGE is just around the corner. The evidence and the pronouncements are almost exactly the same as the current hysteria. The only difference is now they say the earth is warming.

100 years ago or so, when I was a teenager, I proposed the hypotheses that, due to the fact that one summer seemed a little hotter than previous summers, the erath must be turning slowly over on it's side. Think about that! If true, that would mean that someday, the equator would be where the arctic and antarctic circles are now, and they would be part of the equator. My theory is just as plausible as Al Gore's but I didn't have the bucks or the passion to blow it up into a global crisis.

Still, even if there is such a thing as Global warming, it is still not an imminent threat. The question I asked before remains unanswered, so I will ask again:

Can anybody explain how temperatures rising .7 of a degree over 100 years poses a greater threat than terrorism? Anyone? Anyone?

Mark said...

Oh, and by the way. Tribes in Africa warring over dwindling resources because of warm temperatures is not symptomatic of Global warming. They are warring over dwindling resources because of drought. Droughts have been an ongoing problem in the world since the world began. Read your Old Testament. Droughts happened waaaaaay back then, too. Is that because of Global warming? Of course not.

This country has droughts, too. In fact, there is one going on as we write this. But it isn't going to make any group in America declare war on any other group. The reason they are so devastating in Africa is because the Africans don't take the same preventative measures that we in America do. And because African countries have a different, more violent culture than Americans. They have less respect for human life. Most are Muslims. Also, the majority of Americans know better than to try to eke out a living in a desert.

There are many more logical reasons for the fighting over land in Africa than Global Warming.

The very fact that the fighting is a localized problem, and not, in fact, a global one is evidence that GW is a myth.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Mark - the warmest year on record was 2005, this from our very own NOAA. Glen Beck is a lying sack of crap, which is, I'm sure, where you got that dismal bit of offal.

Using the word "Tribes" when referring to wars in Africa is a bit 19th century for reality.

Marshall Art said...

"I bow down to no person, ideology, political faction, or human construct."

Except those on the review board. Those people are without error. Ever.

Once again, you assign nobility to those on your side of the issue which you obviously assume is missing in the opposition ("...there might be some out there who are not so much pure as they are dedicated professionals doing their jobs to the best of their duties, allowing the chips to fall where they may."---"Real scientists do the former."---etc.) Hardly an indication of objectivity. What makes you think the opposition is lacking in these qualities? Hasn't history shown that the "consensus" isn't always correct? Is it so hard to believe that the vaunted peer reviewers might be biased towards one outcome as opposed to another? And why do you insist that I let my ideology cloud my every opinion? Are you suggesting that only you have the ability to see things objectively? I think you show consistently that you don't.

I also think you like to change the subject, which is for this thread, the worthiness of Gore to receive the prize, as well as the meaningfulness of the prize itself. You may believe your scientists are non-political, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. (I do, however, think it would serve you to realize that they are indeed affected by politics, both the politics of government, as well as the politics of getting validation from one's peers, getting funding for further research, getting offers for and retaining gigs at universities, etc.) But Gore is indeed a political animal and it is politics, or more precisely, his own desire to be seen and remembered as a great American savior, that drives every little thing he does. He is not unique in this regard, most politicians have at least a little of this, but he is amongst the leaders in self-serving, self-promoting "dig me-ism".

This whole GW issue is Gore's way of setting himself up as a savior. It's a "safe" crisis for him to highlight, as it offers no guaranteed threat that can be tangibly felt in the immediate future. Though many in the field of climate agree, it's hardly close to consensus and his saying the argument is over does not make it so. And the vilification is coming from him to those who oppose him, not the other way around. The opponents are legitimate, peer review or no, and he has been conspicuously unavailable to debate the issue with anyone. He would insist that we turn our attention from those that have attacked us repeatedly since before his time as VP, a real and proven threat, for the hypothetical threat that may or may not affect us somewhere down the line. He is woefully unworthy of the respect, admiration and apparent tingling of the nether regions, that you hold for him.

Finally, and I'm pretty much done with the going-nowhere issue, is that I read damn near every link presented from left and right. I'm almost obsessive-compulsive about it and it takes a lot of time. I've gotten to the point where I'm getting really good at knowing when I'm going to learn something and when I'm simply going to read another version of what was just posted by those like yourself. So if I don't read about the British judge from someone who believes as you do, it's only a matter of saving time and preventing the redundancy of it all. YOU, however, impress me as being totally unconcerned with those that are in opposition from you. Relying on peer review as the be-all and end-all of credibility is first-class lame. Try opening your mind a bit.