Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Love the people that lie to you about the person who tells you the truth who you hate.

Truth? Ha!
Sucks for you, because I think you called them lies. Oh well.

[/quote]

The inaccuracies are:

  • The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government�??s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
  • The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
  • The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government�??s expert had to accept that it was �??not possible�?? to attribute one-off events to global warming.
  • The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government�??s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
  • The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
  • The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant�??s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
  • The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
  • The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
  • The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
  • The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
  • The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

“There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend – global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.”

[/quote]
This was presented in the hilarious albeit phony film “Swindle” complete with a phony chart. While on accurate charts C02 and temp track nearly perfectly, there was a “cooling” in the 40-70’s. In the movie they lie by ommission by leaving out the factually known(even to them) cause, sulphate aerosols. Still C02 isn’t supposed to perfectly track temperature.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Yes C02 lags but so what? This is known issue and has nothing to do with whether C02 causes global warming.

This is just so stunningly stupid.

[/quote]

Uhh not really?
(Factual)

Al Gore and Tipper in ‘Grease’:

http://www.snappygreetings.com/snappygrams/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=69&idproduct=137

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Love the people that lie to you about the person who tells you the truth who you hate.

Truth? Ha!
Sucks for you, because I think you called them lies. Oh well.

The inaccuracies are:

  • The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government�??s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
  • The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
  • The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government�??s expert had to accept that it was �??not possible�?? to attribute one-off events to global warming.
  • The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government�??s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
  • The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
  • The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant�??s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
  • The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
  • The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
  • The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
  • The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
  • The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
    [/quote]

As claimed by a , wait for it…Judge.
but anyway:

* Ice-sheet driven sea level rise Gore correctly asserted that melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels 20ft (6 meters). In the movie, no timescale for that was specified, but lest you think that the 20 ft number is simply plucked out of thin air, you should note that this is about how much higher sea level was around 125,000 years ago during the last inter-glacial period. Then, global temperatures were only a degree or two warmer than today - and given that this is close to the minimum temperature rise we can expect in the future, that 20 ft is particularly relevant. The rate at which this is likely to happen is however highly uncertain as we have discussed previously.

* Pacific island nations needing to evacuate Much of Tuvalu is only a few feet above sea level, and any sea level rise is going to impact them strongly. The impacts are felt in seemingly disconnected ways - increasing brine in groundwater, increasing damage and coastal erosion from tides and storm surges, but they are no less real for that. The government of Tuvalu has asked New Zealand to be ready to evacuate islanders if needed, and while currently only 75 people per year can potentially be resettled, this could change if the situation worsened.
  In the movie there is only one line that referred to this: "That's why the citizens of these pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand", which is out of context in the passage it's in, but could be said to only be a little ahead of it's time.

* Climate impacts on the ocean conveyor The movie references the Younger Dryas event that occurred 11,000 years ago when, it is thought, a large discharge of fresh water into the North Atlantic disrupted the currents, causing significant regional cooling. That exact scenario can't happen again, but similar processes are likely to occur. The primary unresolved scientific issue regards how quickly the circulation is likely to change as we move forward. The model simulations in the latest IPCC report show a slowdown in the circulation - by about 30% by 2100 - but there is much we don't understand about modeling that circulation and future inputs of freshwater from the ice sheets, so few are willing to completely rule out the possibility of a more substantial change in the future. Further discussion on what this really means and doesn't mean is available here and here.

* CO2 and Temperature connections in the ice core record Gore stated that the greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes over ice age signals had a complex relationship but that they 'fit'. Again, both of these statements are true. The complexity though is actually quite fascinating and warrants being further discussed by those interested in how the carbon cycle will react in the future. We've discussed the lead/lag issue previously. A full understanding of why CO2 changes in precisely the pattern that it does during ice ages is elusive, but among the most plausible explanations is that increased received solar radiation in the southern hemisphere due to changes in Earth's orbital geometry warms the southern ocean, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, which then leads to further warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect. Gore's terse explanation of course does not mention such complexities, but the crux of his point�??that the observed long-term relationship between CO2 and temperature in Antarctica supports our understanding of the warming impact of increased CO2 concentrations�??is correct. Moreover, our knowledge of why CO2 is changing now (fossil fuel burning) is solid. We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the carbon cycle feedback is positive (increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO2 and CH4), implying that future changes in CO2 will be larger than we might anticipate.

* Kilimanjaro Gore is on even more solid ground with Kilimanjaro. In the movie, the retreat of Kilimanjaro is not claimed to be purely due to global warming , but it is a legitimate example of the sort of thing one expects in a warmer world, and is consistent with what almost all other tropical mountain glaciers are doing. There is indeed some ongoing discussion in the literature as to whether or not the retreat of ice on Kilimanjaro is related to the direct effects (warming atmospheric temperatures) or indirect effects (altered patterns of humidity, cloud cover, and precipitation influencing Kilimanjaro's ice mass) of climate change, and that argument isn't yet over. But these arguments would be of more relevance if (a) we were not witnessing the imminent demise of an ice field that we know has existed for at least the past 12,000 years and (b) most of the other glaciers weren't disappearing as well.

* Drying up of Lake Chad It is undisputed that Lake Chad has indeed shrunk rapidly in recent decades. While irrigation and upstream water use are probably contributing factors, the dominant cause is the reduction of rainfall across the entire Sahel from the 1950s to the 1980s and with rainfall today still substantially below the high point 50 years ago. There is substantial evidence that at least a portion of this drying out is human-caused. A few recent papers (Held et al, PNAS; Chung and Ramanathan and Biasutti and Giannini) have addressed causes ranging from Indian Ocean changes in sea surface temperature to the increase in atmospheric aerosols in the Northern hemisphere. Gore uses this example to illustrate that there are droughts in some regions even while other areas are flooding. Unfortunately this is exactly what the models suggest will happen.

* Hurricane Katrina and global warming Katrina is used in the film as a legitimate illustration of the destructive power of hurricanes, our inability to cope with natural disaster, and the kind of thing that could well get worse in a warmer world. Nowhere does Gore state that Katrina was caused by global warming. We discussed this attribution issue back in 2005, and what we said then still holds. Individual hurricanes cannot be attributed to global warming, but the statistics of hurricanes, in particular the maximum intensities attained by storms, may indeed be.

* Impact of sea ice retreat on Polar bears As we presaged in August, summer Arctic sea ice shattered all records this year for the minimum extent. This was partially related to wind patterns favorable to ice export in the spring, but the long term trends are almost certainly related to the ongoing and dramatic warming in the Arctic. Polar bears do indeed depend on the sea ice to hunt for seals in the spring and summer, and so a disappearance of this ice is likely to impact them severely. The specific anecdote referred to in the movie came from observations of anomalous drownings of bears in 2004 and so was accurate. However, studying the regional populations of polar bears is not easy and assessing their prospects is tough. In the best observed populations such as in western Hudson Bay (Stirling and Parkinson, 2006), female polar bear weight is going down as the sea ice retreats over the last 25 years, and the FWS is considering an endangered species listing. However, it should be stated that in most of the discussions about polar bears, they are used as a representative species. Arctic ecosystems are changing on many different levels, but it is unsurprising that charismatic mega-fauna get more press than bivalves. In the end, it may be the smaller and less photogenic elements that have the biggest impact.

* Impact of ocean warming on coral reefs Corals are under stress from a multitude of factors; overfishing, deliberate destruction, water pollution, sea level rise, ocean acidification and, finally, warming oceans. The comment in the movie that rising temperatures and other factors cause coral bleaching is undoubtedly true. Bleaching episodes happen when the coral is under stress, and many examples have been linked to anomalously warm ocean temperatures (Australia in 1998 and 2002, all over the Indian Ocean in recent years). Corals are a sobering example of how climate change exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in eco-systems, potentially playing the role of the straw that breaks the camel's back in many instances.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:

Yes C02 lags but so what? This is known issue and has nothing to do with whether C02 causes global warming.

This is just so stunningly stupid.

Uhh not really?
(Factual)

[/quote]

So explain to me how it warmed the globe in the past when increased CO2 came AFTER temperature increases?

Perhaps there are OTHER things that actually cause the globe to warm. But Al Gore cannot make money off of them by selling sunspot or water vapor credits (yet).

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
I am happy for Al Gore. Didn’t know that a Nobel, any Nobel, was awarded on a work of fiction. [/quote]

Carter’s Nobel was largely fictional.

Here are some other skeptics.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Here are some other skeptics.
[/quote]

Very interesting, thanks Zap. Now (see below from the webpage you provided) it’s apparently “immoral” to question global warming - if that’s not a definition of a growing and hysterical ideology, what is?


UNITED NATIONS, May 10 (UPI) – A former chief of the U.N. World Health Organization who also is a former prime minister of Norway and a medical doctor has declared an end to the climate-change debate.

Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, one of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s three new special envoys on climate change, also headed up the 1987 U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development where the concept of sustainable development was first floated.

“This discussion is behind us. It’s over,” she told reporters. “The diagnosis is clear, the science is unequivocal – it’s completely immoral, even, to question now, on the basis of what we know, the reports that are out, to question the issue and to question whether we need to move forward at a much stronger pace as humankind to address the issues.”

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Agreed. Can anyone recommend a reputable & comprehensive source (preferably a book) for a generalist to learn about alternative global warming theories?
[/quote]

No source is comprehensive, the science is in its infancy. For anything other than subjects like time series and regression statistics or regional climate/weather modeling, most books on “Global Warming” would be/are outdated by the time they’re published (My local library has quite a collection covering the last 30-some yrs.) On top of that, for morons like 100meters, no one source outside of himself is reputable.

climateaudit.org is a decent place to start for what you’re looking for. Along with realclimate.org, probably the two most authoritative ‘skeptic’ and ‘zealot’ blogs out there.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
808fightconcepts wrote:
I’m just curious why he refused to sit down and talk about his points with scientists with opposing viewpoints. I find it a bit hypocritical that he’s preaching about all this global warming yet he flies on private jets and has an electric bill of close to 3G’s a month. Kind of like John Edwards trying to “associate and understand” poor people while he gets $400 haircuts.

Gore had 7 ‘F’ grades at Divinity School. He’s a fucking idiot. Besides, he’s a politician, which pretty much excludes him from speaking truthfully (unless its in his own interest, of course).

[/quote]

But you love Bush right?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Two words:

Yasser Arafat

If that doesn’t kill the meaning of “peace” nothing does.[/quote]

Naah, Arafat was ok. Their biggest mistake was Kissinger. That guy lied like others breathe.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Setting aside the debate on global warming, what does Al Gore’s campaign to raise awareness on the issue have to do with “peace”?

This is exactly why him winning it pissed me off…[/quote]

Pissing stupid fucks off. I’m sure the comitee took that bonus into account.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
The Mage wrote:

Regardless, I simply want the facts without all the political bullshit attached. It makes it harder to form accurate opinions when people are not given the truth, or feel it is right to twist the facts to fit their point of view.

Agreed. Can anyone recommend a reputable & comprehensive source (preferably a book) for a generalist to learn about alternative global warming theories?

And yes, that Gore was honored this way is a travesty, but I suppose it’s not all that surprising.

[/quote]

I’m surprised that you aren’t looking for reliable sources about the truth about global warming. You don’t know shit about it, but you have already figured out what you want to believe.

It looks like you want someone to “twist the facts to your point of view”.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
808fightconcepts wrote:
I’m just curious why he refused to sit down and talk about his points with scientists with opposing viewpoints. I find it a bit hypocritical that he’s preaching about all this global warming yet he flies on private jets and has an electric bill of close to 3G’s a month. Kind of like John Edwards trying to “associate and understand” poor people while he gets $400 haircuts.

Gore had 7 ‘F’ grades at Divinity School. He’s a fucking idiot. Besides, he’s a politician, which pretty much excludes him from speaking truthfully (unless its in his own interest, of course).

But you love Bush right?

[/quote]

Of course!! There will even be statues of him in Brussels as the modern day Charles Martel, beating back the Muslim hordes as they attempt to conquer Europe. You will tell stories of wonder about the great man to your grandchildren someday.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
climateaudit.org is a decent place to start for what you’re looking for. Along with realclimate.org, probably the two most authoritative ‘skeptic’ and ‘zealot’ blogs out there.[/quote]

Thanks lucasa, exactly what I was looking for - great resources both. Thanks & cheers, ~katz

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Setting aside the debate on global warming, what does Al Gore’s campaign to raise awareness on the issue have to do with “peace”?

This is exactly why him winning it pissed me off…

Pissing stupid fucks off. I’m sure the comitee took that bonus into account.

[/quote]

I didn’t know pissing you off was a goal of theirs…Interesting.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
808fightconcepts wrote:
I’m just curious why he refused to sit down and talk about his points with scientists with opposing viewpoints. I find it a bit hypocritical that he’s preaching about all this global warming yet he flies on private jets and has an electric bill of close to 3G’s a month. Kind of like John Edwards trying to “associate and understand” poor people while he gets $400 haircuts.

Gore had 7 ‘F’ grades at Divinity School. He’s a fucking idiot. Besides, he’s a politician, which pretty much excludes him from speaking truthfully (unless its in his own interest, of course).

But you love Bush right?

Of course!! There will even be statues of him in Brussels as the modern day Charles Martel, beating back the Muslim hordes as they attempt to conquer Europe. You will tell stories of wonder about the great man to your grandchildren someday.

[/quote]

Or, we could put up wanted posters. There’s still the little problem about war crimes and the International Court in The Hague.

I love it when morons, still believing wmd were found in Iraq, want to investigate the scientific evidence about global warming, looking for a hole in the logic and telling each other international conspiracy fairy tales.

Sorry folks, you can’t run the global warming model on your Vista infested hardware.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
I wondered when somebody was going to post this.

I have no faith in the Nobel Peace Prize. Especially after this.

Similarly I have no faith in the Oscars.

Are we awarding prizes based on actual merit, or because we like their politics?

On the same subject, check out these articles:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253

Oh, no. A conservative source. But here is the article that prompted that article:

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

The favorite line:

“And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”[/quote]

Hell I had no faith in it when they gave it to that murderer Arafat. That pretty much invalidates any awknowlegement they make. I guess Bin Laden is next.

How is making shit up about global warming a peace thing anyhow? Top that off with the fact that Gore has a bigger carbon “footprint” then all of us combined anyway.

[quote]100meters wrote:

Junkscience is factually junk, but you’d prefer it over sound scientific consensus? Odd.[/quote]

Consensus is not a scientific term, it is a political one.