Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

Sorry Mage, but I asked him some similar questions in the “arctic thaw” thread, to no avail. Apparently when you introduce a concept that is outside of a persons ability to comprehend, You are an idiot that doesn’t know about “science”.[/quote]

This is part of his pathology/conditioning. When queried as to definitive facts, sources, or experience and expertise, he suffers a sort of amnesia that prevents him from typing a direct response or sometimes even acknowledging the the query in general.

I’ve asked repeatedly for his training in computer simulation, weather and climate science, statistical modeling only to go unanswered. I’ve also tried to grasp which exact ‘skeptics’ he’s talking about and what they’ve said to the same result.

The part that realy cracks me up is the whole deception thing.

There are scientists who are bent on decieving people who believe the climate catastrophe scenario?

They must be in cahoots with the same deciever/adversary who planted those fossilized remnants of dinosaurs deep in rocks for modern archeologists to find, ya know, to lead “believers” astray.

[quote]100meters wrote:

What part was lacking in science? The countless models done countless ways showing the same result?

A.Gore bias towards science
B.Junkscience bias towards slandering science.

I prefer A.[/quote]

Wait, wait, wait. Your whole argument is Gore smart, juckscience stupid?

Why didn’t you follow this with nanny nanny boo boo?

You obviously don’t even understand how science even works. You are arguing against exactly what is done in science.

When research is published, (well we can attempt to call Gores political movie published research, just for the sake of argument,) what happens next is that scientists all over rip apart that research, attempting to find flaws in it. Even the ones who want to prove it do their best to find flaws, if they have any worth as a scientist.

Yet when this happens, you put down the critics.

If you are not allowed to do this, it is no longer science, it becomes dogma.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
100meters wrote:

What part was lacking in science? The countless models done countless ways showing the same result?

A.Gore bias towards science
B.Junkscience bias towards slandering science.

I prefer A.

Wait, wait, wait. Your whole argument is Gore smart, juckscience stupid?

Why didn’t you follow this with nanny nanny boo boo?

You obviously don’t even understand how science even works. You are arguing against exactly what is done in science.

When research is published, (well we can attempt to call Gores political movie published research, just for the sake of argument,) what happens next is that scientists all over rip apart that research, attempting to find flaws in it. Even the ones who want to prove it do their best to find flaws, if they have any worth as a scientist.

Yet when this happens, you put down the critics.

If you are not allowed to do this, it is no longer science, it becomes dogma.[/quote]

I don’t think you get it…junkscience doesn’t really use science, just junk. They aren’t trying to advance science only to cast doubt on science (albeit not by using science).

For example using a made up chart to debunk countless peer reviewed studies isn’t science…see what I mean? There are legit skeptics, climateaudit is one, junkscience is not.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/gore_wins_facts_lose.html

Gore Wins; Facts Lose
By Tony Blankley

The world has become such a difficult and dangerous place that I am deeply appreciative of recent amusing events, which seem as if they were written by the Marx Brothers or Monty Python. I have in mind, it should go without saying, Al Gore winning both an Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize. The very sentence sounds like a punch line. But I can’t quite figure out who is supposed to be the butt of the joke. I rather suspect that he has one more award to come – the trifecta of absurdism. Perhaps he will be pronounced the world’s greatest jockey or the world’s most graceful dancer. It only makes sense, given Al Gore’s acknowledged role in bringing the Internet to humanity. Whatever the award, the world will receive it with the same demeanor it displayed in appreciating the emperor’s new clothes several centuries ago.

It is hard to say which of Al Gore’s awards seems more improbable: his Academy Award, although he does not possess a single skill required for filmmaking, or his Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming, although he has no technical skills in that area and he has misled the world profoundly as to the danger. It just goes to show how good life can be once you officially are designated a victim of George W. Bush. Once Gore lost the 2000 election (before which he was scorned and mocked by the liberal world), the world fell over itself, showering him with wealth and honor. If only he could arrange to lose another election to a Republican, he could be chosen Pope, Homecoming King and Soapbox Derby champion.

Before reviewing Gore’s various inanities that won him the Nobel, it is worth taking a look at one of his related projects: carbon offsets. As chairman and founder of Generation Investment Management, a firm that purchases carbon dioxide offsets, Gore stands to profit further from what he sees as mankind’s misery – which is OK by me. I’m glad to see he finally has developed the capitalist instinct (like his dad did with Occidental Petroleum and Armand Hammer).

But carbon offsets are a rather strange concept. Let me use a simple metaphor to explain it: Let’s suppose that Al Gore goes to an Italian restaurant and eats a loaf of garlic bread, a plate of lasagna, a bowl of spaghetti and meatballs, an extra-large pizza with seven toppings, a couple bottles of Chianti and a large assortment of pastries. As a result, he puts on 10 pounds. But he is deeply concerned that mankind is getting too fat. So he pays 10 peasants in Asia $10 each to eat nothing for a week. Although they are already thin, by starving themselves for a week, they each lose a pound. As a result, after a week, mankind is weight neutral. Al Gore weighs 10 pounds more, 10 Asians weigh 10 pounds less – and Al Gore is given another Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in keeping mankind’s waistline in check.

Of course, this example is not quite fair to Gore because that imagined humanitarianism actually costs him cash money. In the real carbon offset business, he looks forward to being paid for directing other carbon consumers to invest in carbon neutral projects. Although when Gore personally is using carbon, as when he flies in a carbon-belching Gulfstream, one of his companies would pay some other fella not to fly or plant a tree or do something to offset Gore’s carbon belching.

But Al Gore’s carbon offset shuffle is small potatoes, as it were. His great accomplishment is to have shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the thousands of scientists of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – while contradicting their scientific findings. (See Danish climate expert Bjorn Lomborg’s wonderful article in The Boston Globe last week for more details.)

For example, Gore warned the world in his Academy Award-winning movie to expect the world’s sea level to rise 20 feet this century. His co-award winners said about 1 foot – the same increase in sea level experienced during the past 150 years. So much for the Eastern Seaboard being underwater.

Gore also warned that the world is endangered by the fast melting of Greenland’s glaciers, while his co-award winners (the scientists) concluded that if sustained, the melt would add – at most – just 3 inches to sea level. I guess we’ll still have Miami and London despite an inconvenient truth.

Lomborg also points out that while Gore was (amazingly) technically accurate to warn that up to 400,000 people might die by 2050 because of global warming, Gore carefully failed to point out that 1.8 million lives will be saved from the cold that global warming will replace. So global warming will save a net of 1.4 million lives, rather than cost 400,000 lives. In a week or two, I will review Bjorn Lomborg’s superb new book, “Cool It,” which blows a hole in the need for Kyoto treaty compliance that even Al Gore and I could walk through.

Until then, take comfort in knowing that Al Gore’s warning about the shrinking population of polar bears is also wrong; their population is rising. The award Gore truly deserves (and the one for which I hereby nominate him is): Best Scary Campfire Storyteller. (He should beat out the hook on the car window story handily.)

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

[quote]100meters wrote:

I don’t think you get it…junkscience doesn’t really use science, just junk. They aren’t trying to advance science only to cast doubt on science (albeit not by using science).

For example using a made up chart to debunk countless peer reviewed studies isn’t science…see what I mean? There are legit skeptics, climateaudit is one, junkscience is not.[/quote]

Yes I get it. If it does not support you view, it is not science. But if it supports your view it is.

What chart are you talking about?

Oh by the way, climateaudit which you mention has pointed out the bias in the realclimate website you used to support Gore’s movie. But you will notice I did not use that to avoid responding to that website, though I did point out the political nature of the site.

How exactly do you know that junkscience is faulty? You say it as thought it is fact, but not once have you given a real reason not to trust the site, other then posting an obviously biased webpage similar in nature to wiki that can be changed by anyone. Though I knew it was controversial when I posted it. The only arguments I have found against this website are biased sources who dislike being disagreed with. (Plus one T-Nation author.)

Again tell me exactly where this website is wrong. Not just that its wrong, and leave it at that. That makes it look like you are just using an excuse.

Here is the end of page summery for this website:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[i]What are the take-home messages:

The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.

The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 degree C.

The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on “feedback” (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these “feedback” mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).

The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

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.

The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)

Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.

Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.

Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a “pollutant” it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.

There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known “optimal” nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.

Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).

Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.