Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Wow, What a surprise
Posted by: McQ on Friday, October 12, 2007

Not.
Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change jointly won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for fighting it.
Al Gore now joins the likes of Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat as a "Nobel Peace Prize" winner. Unlike the other Nobel prizes, the Peace Prize has become so political as to be meaningless. If there was any suspense in this award at all it was whether or not Al would take a private jet to the ceremony or fly commercial.

Oh, he shared it with the UN. 'Nuff said.

[My favorite take on it is here.]
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Meaningless to right wing bloggers and partisans. To most of the world, including most of the American public, this is a major honor. But the small sub-universe of right wing bloggers can complain to each other and convince each other that somehow their disdain for the Nobel committee and Al Gore is enough to create an alternate reality where the award isn’t taken seriously. You’re living in the margins, McQ. Blogoworld isn’t reality.

All that said, I don’t agree with major government regulation as the cure for global warming. At this point, I also don’t think signing the Kyoto accord really matters much. I have the odd position of believing the scientific consensus on global warming, including the rather obvious fact that humans are a major cause, but disagree with those who want major governmental action and regulation to counter that. Most of those who oppose government regulation don’t want to even acknowledge that the problem is real, and instead seek out any dissenting opinion or contrary evidence and cling to that as somehow giving them an easy cop out, not having to defend lack of regulation in the face of a major world problem. Come on! You don’t need to deny reality in order to oppose excessive governmental regulation!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

and ha!!

but you probably hate 90% of the past peace prize winners anyway. Working for peace being a more lefty endeavor, as it were.
And whenever people mention Arafat’s prize, they seem to always leave out the fact righties that he won it along with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin?

But you’re right, Carter is pretty much the Devil incarnate. A more evil man I’ve rarely seen.

Anyway, did I mention

ha!


And get your raincoats on. The veins will be bursting across blogistan today!
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Man, if Krugman gets the econ proze ( a long shot this year, I admit) my life will be complete.
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Yea. Al Gore. Nobel Peace Proze winner and Academy Award winner. Good for him. Now only if he had won his home state in 2000, he would have won something worth mentioning.
 
Written By: Twizz
URL: http://
From Justin Levine, as posted on Patterico’s Pontifications:
Let’s see here - Yasser Arafat awarded the Peace Prize for his terrorism against Jews, Jimmy Carter awarded the Peace Prize explicitly as a way for Europeans to protest George Bush’s foreign policy….Seems like the Nobel Peace Prize committee continues to build a steady track record of evolving into a collective left wing circle-jerk.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Be sure to include Henry Kissinger and Menachem Begin on your list of controversial, war-mongering, and extremist Peace Prize winners.
 
Written By: Mithras
URL: http://
Oh, and Teddy Roosevelt, too, while you’re at it :)

 
Written By: Mithras
URL: http://
Yeah, Mithras, those really apply when held up agains this statement, don’t they:
...the Peace Prize has become so political...
While there may have been some politics involved previously, they’re blatant now, and even admitted too by some on the Nobel committee. That makes the prize less to do with peace and much more to do with the politics of those making the award.

And that at least in my estimation, it makes the whole thing pretty meaningless.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"To most of the world, including most of the American public, this is a major honor."
I’m constantly impressed that Scott has been selected as spokesperson for most of the world. With that, your professorial duties, and spending the time here to straighten out all the fringe thinking (or is that "thinking"), I don’t know how you do it.

"including the rather obvious fact that humans are a major cause"
Yes, so obvious.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
"but you probably hate 90% of the past peace prize winners anyway. Working for peace being a more lefty endeavor,"

Yes Mario, you’ve put your thumb on it. Non-lefties seethe with hatred for all you lefties because they are jealous of your pure, beautiful hearts.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Scott Erb,

You know what happened to luxury brands like Yves Saint Laurent that watered down their brand power by licensing it to any old product, like car tires? The brand dies eventually as people realize it has become meaningless.

The Nobel Peace Prize may be esteemed by a whole lot of folks...the kind of folks who think Dan Rather is a middle of the road good ole’ boy.

But slowly and surely, the truth seeps out, attacking the foundations.

Choosing Gore who already has enough accolades is just wankerish, if you ask me. I would bet a whole lot of people start to say, "enough" about Gore, even those who liked the movie.

And, it is interesting that Kissinger got one of these things. I thought he was a war criminal. Perhaps Gore should boycott the awards ceremony in protest.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
And whenever people mention Arafat’s prize, they seem to always leave out the fact righties that he won it along with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin?
Well, which one of the three was a terrorist and was responsible for the murder of Americans?

Gosh, I just can’t figure out why it’s upseting that Arafat was awarded a prize for peace.

As for Gore — good for him. He won a "peace" prize for worrying about the climate. This is supposed to make my head burst? I’m pretty certain that finding the choice of Gore as a Peace Prize Laureate to be ridiculous is quite distant from vein popping.

So, yes, "haha" — you sure got the last laugh! Gore got a prize with a medal! Rock on!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Gosh, I just can’t figure out why it’s upseting that Arafat was awarded a prize for peace.
Or got 98% of what the Palestinians were demanding from Israel and then turned it down in favor of an intafada?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Mohammed Al Baradei got the NPP for trying to give Iran the BOMB to destroy Israel. Jimmy Carter gets away with far more offensive comments than Coulter’s about the Jews on CNN with Wolf Blitzer without a peep of protest. I think that Jimmy Carter gets away with far more offensive remarks against the Jews simply because he is a man of the Left.

There is a ginormous double standard about everything in the media——look at 30Rock mocking affirmative action and black entertainers. If it weren’t Tina Fey & Alec Baldwin, but a conservative group of actors, the screams and shrieks of the hypocritical left would echo from the rooftops.


Instead, the unwatched 30Rock is the TV equivalent of Air America. As an SDS member who stayed at my Ann Arbor home [Mark Rudd had been on the cover of Time magazine the year before for a Columbia U. takeover in May, ’68], said to me among other mantras:

"No fault on the Left."

Still holds true today, as does Mark Rudd’s second piece of advice to me:

"Dare to cheat, dare to win."

Anyone watching "An Inconvenient Truth" will appreciate how apropos that little aphorism remains to this day.

In the meantime, the Norwegians are destroying the brand.
 
Written By: daveinboca
URL: http://www.daveinboca.blogspot.com
To most of the world, including most of the American public, this is a major honor
Most of the American public doesn’t really care though.
Man, if Krugman gets the econ proze ( a long shot this year, I admit) my life will be complete
Pretty sad life I guess

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Would any of Gore’s supporters here care to explain to us just how carping about global warming does anything to advance peace in the world?

There are Nobel Prizes for physics and chemistry. Surely global warming research would fit under one of those categories?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html
[emphasis mine]
Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Let’s not forget, the award isn’t for accomplishments that actually brings peace about.

They are getting an A for effort.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Next up for Gore: He’ll be declared the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, the return of the Mahdi, and the Second Coming of Christ.

But in a secular, tree-hugging way.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Would any of Gore’s supporters here care to explain to us just how carping about global warming does anything to advance peace in the world?
Doh!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Harun, you forgot Krishna.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
To most of the world, including most of the American public, this is a major honor.
Most of the American public doesn’t give a rat’s ass.

Jimmy and Al are both loosers to the American public, as determined in actual elections. The NPP doesn’t change that.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Hey! Why’s everyone harshing on the Goracle and his followers?

I think he absolutely deserved the Nobel Peace Prize; every bit as much as Arafat and Carter.

They have each been responsible for bringing about approximately the same amount of peace after all.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Well, which one of the three was a terrorist and was responsible for the murder of Americans?
Well, funny you should mention it.

Let me preface by saying that my wife’s family are all Israeli, that I think Arafat was a much, much more reprehensible human being, a terrorist and a betrayer of humanity.

That said, real-life history is complicated. Shimon Peres, when he was Defense Secretary, was implicated in The Lavon Affair, which, to quote the Encyclopaedia Britannica was:
a miscarried plot to damage Egypt’s reputation in the United States—the plan allegedly entailed a series of bomb attacks by Israeli agents against U.S. facilities in Egypt that would be blamed on Arab extremists.
It later turned out that Lavon was the fall guy, with rivals within the administration forcing him to take the blame for the whole affair.
 
Written By: Mithras
URL: http://
real-life history is complicated
I agree.

I will also note that I know of no injuries from these attacks. That does not mean they should be applauded, but a man being implicated as someone with knowledge of a plan to cause damage to buildings that doesn’t harm anyone 40 years prior to a peace award is a bit of a distance from an active terrorist.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Jimmy and Al are both loosers to the American public, as determined in actual elections
.

er, um, I guess that’s why Carter was elected President, and Gore was part of two successfull Presidential campaigns and got more votes than Bush in 2000.

You can only hope that your life can aspire to that level of failure.

And if you even dare reply with the words "electoral college", I’ll have to reach through the internets tubes and slap you silly.
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Electoral college. Gore lost in 2000. Get over it.
 
Written By: Twizz
URL: http://
I’ll get over if you will. I didn’t say anything about winning or losing. I was just pointing out the idiocy of whatever numbnut said that Gore had been rejected by the voters.

Getting more votes than the other guy is a very odd definition of rejection, doncha think?
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
I was just pointing out the idiocy of whatever numbnut said that Gore had been rejected by the voters.
That’s not what he said.

Get back to me when Gore can use his medal to change American policy. Until then, it’ll look really pretty on his trophy shelf.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
On a more serious note, who do you guys think would have been a better choice?

Petraeus maybe?

How about Allawi?

Blackwater?
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
Gore was rejected by the voters as he did not win the presidency. Doncha think?
 
Written By: Twizz
URL: http://
On a serious note, explain how "fighting" global warming enables you to win the Noble Peace prize?
 
Written By: Twizz
URL: http://
Getting more votes than the other guy is a very odd definition of rejection, doncha think?
Getting fewer votes where they count is an odd definition of success, doncha think?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
"On a more serious note, who do you guys think would have been a better choice?"

That’s a very good question, actually. Maybe Bush, since he succeeded in brokering a ceasefire in southern Sudan that has held for several years now and includes a referendum on independence?

Now, explain to me how that doesn’t fly compared to other previous winners?

But more seriously, I am not sure who would be a good candidate...then again, that’s not my friggin’ job, and one of the ideas behind the Nobel is that they can a reward people who are not in the public eye and bring attention to a problem.

Gore and AGW doesn’t need any such assistance.

How about Qaddafi since he voluntarily turned over his nuclear program? Controversial, yes, but a nice incentive for other nuclear dictators.



 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
How about Qaddafi since he voluntarily turned over his nuclear program? Controversial, yes, but a nice incentive for other nuclear dictators.
Nah - you can’t go there Harun... that would ultimately make Bush look good. Silly rabbit ;-)
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Geeze Mario - typical, you’re already predictable after what, a week? less?

You forgot to suggest posthumus peace awards we might suggest for our lord Jenghis Khan.
When they were done with a city, it was often very quiet and peaceful in that area for a long long time afterwards.

And someone needs to explain to me about ’fighting Global Warming’ while using more power in a month than the average American uses in a year.
I don’t suppose he’s using private jets and limos and such to jaunt place to place in his crusade to save us is he. I’m sure he’s purchased ’credits’ to offset that. Sorta like buying indulgences for sins.

Probably flying like Captain Planet.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"There are Nobel Prizes for physics and chemistry. Surely global warming research would fit under one of those categories?"

But those categories require actual, verifiable, and reproducible proof. Words like "may alter...", "may induce...", etc. are frowned upon in real science.


"You can only hope that your life can aspire to that level of failure."

True. The Peter Principle gives me hope. I am also inspired by Chance, the hero of "Being There", who, now that I think about it, reminds me of Gore. (Would that make it the Peter Sellars principle?).

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Or got 98% of what the Palestinians were demanding from Israel and then turned it down in favor of an intafada?
Wrong on many counts, McQ.

First, he got the peace prize in 1994 for moving the PLO from demanding Israel be destroyed to accepting its right to exist, and limiting Palestinian demands to those lands taken in 1967 and occupied by Israel. This was a major change, and helped create the possibility of peace.

What you’re talking about happened six years later, and it wasn’t ’98% of what the Palestinians were demanding.’ Rather, it was abot 94% of the LAND, but the way the borders were drawn, the status of East Jerusalem, and other issues outstanding made Arafat fear he couldn’t sell acceptance. That was, I agree, not a sign of someone who deserves the Nobel peace prize, but unless you want to alter space-time, it can’t really be considered relevant for the decision made in 1994.

On another sub issue: Global warming is one of the most serious threats to peace on the planet. If predictions of spreading famines in parts of Africa and Asia are true, there will be massive fights over resources, displacements of peoples and a real threat to our lifestyles. The key to peace is to solve problems in advance rather than wait for crises to become overwhelming. In these blogs it seems all is political, even ones’ stand on global warming. That leads to errors in judgement.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
If predictions of spreading famines in parts of Africa and Asia are true, there will be massive fights over resources, displacements of peoples and a real threat to our lifestyles.
Good, then we will have lots and lots to blog about! As they would say in China, "I hope you live in interesting times!"
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
and helped create the possibility of peace
Still waiting...
What you’re talking about happened six years later
Oops — so much for that "possibility of peace."

BTW, McQ wasn’t claiming the intafada took place pre-Nobel Prize. His point was that the man was awarded a peace prize and continued to kill more people.
The key to peace is to solve problems in advance
So how will we know which wars caused by famines were caused by global warming? We can’t blame the previous wars/famine on global warming.

If Gore stands in a room, snaps his fingers, and no lions ever appear, shall we reward Gore for preventing the arrival of lions?

Maybe the invasion of Iraq has averted a future nuclear holocaust. Maybe we should give Bush an award for saving millions of lives since he may have solved a serious problem in advance.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
If predictions of spreading famines in parts of Africa and Asia are true, there will be massive fights over resources, displacements of peoples and a real threat to our lifestyles.

Good, then we will have lots and lots to blog about! As they would say in China, "I hope you live in interesting times!"
Yes — we’re living in an era in history that future historians will probably be fascinated by. We are "lucky" enough to live through it. And it is exciting in its own way, a thrill seeker era of history.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Global warming is one of the most serious threats to peace on the planet."
Complete bullsh*t. Why? Because you can’t even begin to prove this; it’s emotive speculation. Even your famine example is crap. There already ARE famines in Africa. What effect do they now have on the world in aggregate? Very little. Oh, you say "if they spread." To what extent then? How will it happen? It’s all feckless hand waving.

Is your "stand" on global warming political? I’m not sure what else it could be, save willful ignorance. A reasoned, non-political stand would be one of skepticism and patience until the evidence is clear and convincing. That is most certainly not the case with global warming, despite protestations to the contrary.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Because you can’t even begin to prove this; it’s emotive speculation


The Pentagon
would disagree. They put global warming as a security threat to the US. Does the American military run by "emotive speculation"? Also, I guarantee you, this gets serious treatment by international relations scholars.

Also, my stand on global warming is driven by science — not just picking and choosing ones to believe that suit my bias, but really considering the whole realm of data. It is pretty convincing. Politically, my position in the first comment in this thread shows I’m not calling for big government regulation as a response.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
jwg,
That’s not what he said?

My paraphrase isn’t dead on accurate? He said they were considered "loosers" (sic) based on actual elections. And I’m telling him he’s innumerate.

And whether Gore has affect on national policy is certainly not due to his lack of trying. When you have government (both sides of the aisle) essentially bought and paid for by big bidness, it’s gonna be a long time before any significant policy change occurs.

By that time, my house will be beach front property, and snow will be but a distant memory...
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
My paraphrase isn’t dead on accurate?
Gore lost the election. Ergo, he’s a loser "as determined in actual elections."
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Erb — the Pentagon DID NOT "put global warming as a security threat to the US."
"As is customary in military and defense-related projects, the authors describe a worst case scenario (not a prediction) for abrupt climate change," the company said. "They note that ’the purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable—to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on national security.’ Contrary to some recent media coverage, the report was not secret, suppressed, or predictive."

[...]

Marshall, head of a Pentagon think tank known as the Office of Net Assessments, said his intent was to explore the question of whether countries affected by rapid climate change would suffer or benefit, and whether the change would make them more or less stable.

“More pragmatically, what kinds of climate change might our worldwide forces encounter in the future?” Marshall said.

A spokesman for Marshall, Lt. Cmdr. Daniel Hetlage, said the report did not fully satisfy Marshall’s needs. As a result, the report, commissioned last October and finished earlier this month, will not be passed along to Rumsfeld.
Gosh — another bogus link by Erb. That’s shocking!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Also, my stand on global warming is driven by science — not just picking and choosing ones to believe that suit my bias, but really considering the whole realm of data. It is pretty convincing.
Let me guess: you swallow whole every piece of dreck to emanate from IPCC.
 
Written By: BC
URL: http://
Gore says prize must spur action.

Well of cource he says that.

How else can he possibly stay relivant?

He’s a tool, and a douche.
Also, my stand on global warming is driven by science — not just picking and choosing ones to believe that suit my bias, but really considering the whole realm of data.
So’s this guy...

Erb, you are aware that a lot of the data used to back up that concensus has been re-calculated, right? That the models continually fail to be accurate?

If the science is so convincing, why is it constantly wrong?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
British High Court decision on "An Inconvenient Truth": On Wednesday, a judge of the United Kingdom’s High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, issued a ruling in a challenge to the use of Al Gore’s film "An Inconvenient Truth." The judge ruled that, under British education law, the film was "partisan" and could not be shown to students without presentation of different viewpoints. The decision listed nine major factual errors in the film. The judge noted that, as a result of the suit, the British education authorities have already agreed to address the factual errors, and to present other views.
*chuckles*

Full text can be found at The Heartland Institute’s site here (downloadable PDF).

(H/T to The Volokh Conspiracy)

How’s that science, Erb?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"Also, I guarantee you, this gets serious treatment by international relations scholars."
Well then, I stand down. I mean, really, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SCHOLARS. Who in their right mind would disagree with Them?!

"Also, my stand on global warming is driven by science"
Your stand is driven by reading what is published as science and not by thinking scientifically, which means to be meticulous, rational, and above all, skeptical. There is a long history, as has been amply demonstrated in this very blog, of science getting it wrong over and over. In fact most honest scientists are the first to admit that science is usually more wrong than right, at least until experimentation and direct observation exhaustively proves a theory. Nearly every day there are compelling contradictory studies, commentary, and evidence which challenge the so-called consensus. At some point along the way you’ve decided to stop being skeptical and consider new evidence. Either that’s political, laziness, or willful ignorance. The science on this issue is moving far too fast and furious for anyone to plant both feet on the ground and claim that the fat lady has sung. It also strikes me that you’re unwilling to consider that the scientists around this issue have priorities and biases that could significantly compromise their objectivity. Perhaps because you’re in academia you’re predisposed to think that scholars are above this, and yet again there has been plenty of evidence which shows that scholars are human too.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
er, um, I guess that’s why Carter was elected President, and Gore was part of two successfull Presidential campaigns and got more votes than Bush in 2000.
Carter was a disaster as president, which is why he lost big in ’80.

And Gore lost in ’00, despite running as the sitting VP.
And if you even dare reply with the words "electoral college", I’ll have to reach through the internets tubes and slap you silly.
"electoral college".

Have at it.
The Gallup Poll organization released a report today revealing that despite Al Gore’s latest honor — the Nobel Peace Prize for his global warming battle — its polls have detected no "groundswell" for a Gore race for the White House in 2008.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
If the science is so convincing, why is it constantly wrong?
If all I read was what right wing bloggers post, then I’d think the same thing. However, I read a wide variety of sources, and in fact know a number of scientists who are very worried about this issue.

And if we are to assume science to be wrong, as Grimshaw does, what then should determine our beliefs about an issue? Should we act on: a) the basis of general scientific perspectives and results; b) believe the opposite of what science claims; or c) consider science irrelevant and stop the whole scientific endeavor?

If the science changes, I’ll change my views. One reason I am quite explicitly NOT calling for government regulation is the danger of unintended consequences (one of the reasons I opposed the Iraq war), especially if the science (much like the expectations about Iraq) ends up being wrong on some fundamental points. My political position is based on taking all that into account. Yet, if I am to give a lecture on the dangers of global warming, I’ll note what the scientific consensus is (generally), where there are disagreements, and assess the likely impact on international affairs if the science is correct.

Also, Grimshaw, you seem to ignore that the Pentagon also has legitimate concerns. They recognize that the scientists may indeed be mostly right!

I mean, do you want us to just ignore science completely because science is progressive and as we learn more we improve our knowledge? The ’science is often wrong’ argument seems bizarre, because the alternative is to just believe whatever our whims tell us we want to believe.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
In other words, Gore is still a looser. And a sore one at that—along with Jimmy, who now opines that he’d have one in ’80 if he sent one more helicoper.

Poor Jimmy, can’t get over being a looser.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
won not one.

in my previosu post.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Scott, you completely missed my point, so I’ll try again. (Did you even read what I wrote?)

The science on global warming is far from settled. There is contrary evidence nearly every day, therefore it would be foolish to say "this is the way it is, period." You, however, seem to be doing that. Your A, B, C choices are silly. At least one more option is to withhold judgment until greater certainty can be obtained.

Science is often wrong because science is about testing hypothesis and theories and proving them right or wrong. More often than not, experiments fail to prove something (for various reasons) but of course no one publishes failures very often. Einstein, Edison, Curie, etc., etc. were probably more often wrong than right (but of course when they finally got it right it was a big deal). That is what I mean about it being wrong. It’s as if you can’t look back in history and say "ah yes, I see where science was sure of something in the past but with more research changed its belief over time."

The Pentagon claim you make was already addressed by someone else (it’s their job to consider all possible outcomes; I’ll bet they have a plan for an alien invasion too, that doesn’t mean they think it will actually happen!)



 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Scott, you completely missed my point, so I’ll try again. (Did you even read what I wrote?)

The science on global warming is far from settled. There is contrary evidence nearly every day, therefore it would be foolish to say "this is the way it is, period."
Note this from my last post: If the science changes, I’ll change my views. One reason I am quite explicitly NOT calling for government regulation is the danger of unintended consequences (one of the reasons I opposed the Iraq war), especially if the science (much like the expectations about Iraq) ends up being wrong on some fundamental points. My political position is based on taking all that into account.

That seems to be explicitly doing something different than you describe. Also, I think we know that the Pentagon report was quashed for political reasons. That’s typical of this, and most, administrations. But it’s pretty clear that they are taking into account dangers of climate change as a real security threat.

And the studies on global warming have been extensive, and the evidence has continued to support the existence of global warming, and that humans cause at least some of it. In fact, even global warming skeptics have gone from denying it even exists to trying to deny that humans are involved. But looking at the evidence, I think the skeptics have a weak case.

Can we agree on this: there are some who view the evidence and are convinced global warming is not necessarily a threat and the evidence is too meager to do much. THere are some who view the same evidence and are convinced that global warming is real, caused by humans and we need to act fast. People can hold each of these perspectives honestly, and with a fair consideration of the evidence.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Also, I think we know that the Pentagon report was quashed for political reasons.
Know?

We may think that, based upon our political filter, but we don’t know it.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I think we know that the Pentagon report was quashed for political reasons
Erb knows the truth because he read it in the Guardian. They would never steer Erb wrong. Erb has an excellent track record of linking to unbiased and accurate sources.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"THere are some who view the same evidence and are convinced that global warming is real, caused by humans and we need to act fast. People can hold each of these perspectives honestly, and with a fair consideration of the evidence."
No, we can’t agree. People may hold such an opinion honestly (as in, they genuinely believe it), but I don’t believe that can hold it with a fair consideration of the evidence (and when I use ’fair’ I mean reasoned, meticulously, and with a posture of skepticism about all of it).
"That seems to be explicitly doing something different than you describe."
It’s not. You hold a position that is unproven. I’m talking about remaining skeptical and being patient until the evidence is genuinely and reasonably irrefutable, one way or the other. You apparently think it is but it is not. If you disagree you are reading broadly or critically enough (or you don’t have the necessary education to process the information critically).

I wonder how many scientists would literally bet their personal career and financial future on it? My guess, d*mn few.

Anyway, this is it for me. I don’t even know why I engage in this as it is futile.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
No, we can’t agree. People may hold such an opinion honestly (as in, they genuinely believe it), but I don’t believe that can hold it with a fair consideration of the evidence (and when I use ’fair’ I mean reasoned, meticulously, and with a posture of skepticism about all of it).
I think that’s an untenable position. I know scientists — geologists, biologists, physicists — who all are convinced that global warming is a deadly serious problem. I cannot believe that these people don’t take a fair consideration of the evidence, they are trained scientists.

I can believe that a trained scientist can come to a different conclusion. I do not fall victim to the "if they don’t think like me they must not be thinking right" syndrome.

It’s not. You hold a position that is unproven.
Well, to be blunt, DUH! Science is at one level all unproven, we’re looking at hypotheses that haven’t been falsified. Here we’re dealing with models and projections which are fallable. Since I said, and then requoted, my statement that my position on the politics of it is based in part on recognition that the science could later be proven wrong, it’s pretty clear I recognize, as do all scientists, the possibility of later evidence disproving current theory.
I’m talking about remaining skeptical and being patient until the evidence is genuinely and reasonably irrefutable, one way or the other. You apparently think it is but it is not. If you disagree you are reading broadly or critically enough (or you don’t have the necessary education to process the information critically).
Oh come on, you’re setting a standard impossible for almost all science. The scientists who think this is a problem which must be acted on say that the evidence is so strong, and the potential consequences so severe, that it is rational and prudent to do something rather than wait. And while you may disagree with that position, and they may disagree with you, it is not an irrational or unreasonable position. For me, if it comes down to believing scientists I respect and know to have integrity vs. what people from partisan political blogs claim about global warming, I’m going to have to go with the real scientists (from both political parties, by the way). But no scientist would ever claim it’s "proven" or "irrefutable." Many would claim that if we wait that long to do something, it will be too late.

Your position here seems completely unreasonable.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Here is the politically "quashed" report commissioned by the Pentagon:
Because changes have been gradual so far, and are projected to be similarly gradual in the future, the effects of global warming have the potential to be manageable for most nations. Recent research, however, suggests that there is a possibility that this gradual global warming could lead to a relatively abrupt slowing of the ocean’s thermohaline conveyor, which could lead to harsher winter weather conditions, sharply reduced soil moisture, and more intense winds in certain regions that currently provide a significant fraction of the world’s food production.

[...]

In this report, as an alternative to the scenarios of gradual climatic warming that are
so common, we outline an abrupt climate change scenario patterned after the 100-
year event that occurred about 8,200 years ago.
Erb, maybe someday you’ll learn to depend on the actual source rather than a ridiculous article that gives comfort to your biases.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
This debate is entertaining, but it’s not so much a debate as a referendum on a board that doesn’t like Gore, agreeing that they don’t like Gore.


Still...
In other words, Gore is still a looser. And a sore one at that
If this is being a loser, then I’ll take it over any of you winners...

Maybe success is the best revenge... for Gore personally... to bad his one failure hurt the country far more than him.

Obviously this is my opinion, and I realize, as contrary to logic as it may seem, that s few people, well represented here, actually think that as bad as GWB has been, that Gore could somehow have found a way to be worse. I have no intention of even trying to argue it. I’ll just enjoy the show by all of you winners at the expense of this poor, sore, loser.








 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"The Pentagon would disagree."

Maybe they would, but we sure can’t tell from your pathetic evidence, a link to article in the Guardian from 2004.
This quote from the article is rather amusing;

"As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions."

Still waiting for that widespread flooding. Great source, but I don’t expect any better from a political "scientist".

"this gets serious treatment by international relations scholars"

I’m sure it does, which is why most intelligent and scientifically knowledgeable folks laugh at them.

"I think we know that the Pentagon report was quashed for political reasons"

And of course noone would ever, ever, consider leaking it to someone a bit more unbiased than The Guardian.
This reminds me of bad science fiction from the 1950’s.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
OK, try this:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/09/news/climate.php

This isn’t the same as the old Pentagon report, but it still shows that global warming is considered by many a real threat to the peace.

Now, what’s interesting about this discussion is:
1. From the start (first post in this thread) I’ve agreed with people here politically that government reglation is not the way to approach this problem.
2. I’ve noted later that the reason for my position is concern for unintended consequences of such action, as well as the possibility that the science now accepted could be in error.

At this point, you all could have said, "well, great, that’s what we’re asking." Instead, the fact that I note that there is a lot of evidence that global warming is happening and humans are causing part of it, I get attacked by people who seem to think it is not rational for anyone truly following the debate to think that. But the vast majority of scientists think that! Apparently some of you are so into your narrative about global warming being a "religion" and have catipulted the skeptics into the ’good scientists’ that any deviation from that dogma deserves ridicule. Think about it.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"This isn’t the same as the old Pentagon report,"

Why not just provide a link to the actual Pentagon report? Surely after three years it must be available. Surely even The Guardian has been able to make it available. Could it be because the actual Pentagon report, as provided by JWG, doesn’t support you?

"it still shows that global warming is considered by many ..."

I am sure it is, but that isn’t the same as the Pentagon, is it?

Perhaps the Pentagon wouldn’t disagree after all. Is this one of those times you brag about when you admit error?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
IOW, timactual, you aren’t countering anything in my post Thank you.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
IOW, Erb is really saying:
Dear Blogosphere,

Please stop pointing out any errors I make. Can’t you just accept everything I write as the truth? None of my 18 year old students challenge my intellectual authority, so I’m not prepared to back up my pronouncements with anything other than shoddy media reports.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Scott Erb
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG, you just keep wanting to play gotcha games, and you fail. You point out the Pentagon report wasn’t ever presented to Rumsfeld and give the official rationale. I don’t buy it, you do. That’s cool. So I drop that, knowing it won’t satisfy you all, and give a different cite. I also point out in my argument:
Now, what’s interesting about this discussion is:
1. From the start (first post in this thread) I’ve agreed with people here politically that government reglation is not the way to approach this problem.
2. I’ve noted later that the reason for my position is concern for unintended consequences of such action, as well as the possibility that the science now accepted could be in error.

At this point, you all could have said, "well, great, that’s what we’re asking." Instead, the fact that I note that there is a lot of evidence that global warming is happening and humans are causing part of it, I get attacked by people who seem to think it is not rational for anyone truly following the debate to think that. But the vast majority of scientists think that! Apparently some of you are so into your narrative about global warming being a "religion" and have catipulted the skeptics into the ’good scientists’ that any deviation from that dogma deserves ridicule. Think about it.
You ignore the entire argument and try to somehow play a gotcha game. It’s funny because you are really flattering me, and I don’t think you realize it. Oh well, I gotta prepare my lectures ;-)
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
JWG, you just keep wanting to play gotcha games, and you fail. You point out the Pentagon report wasn’t ever presented to Rumsfeld and give the official rationale. I don’t buy it, you do. That’s cool. So I drop that, knowing it won’t satisfy you all, and give a different cite. I also point out in my argument:
A good thing it wasn’t, since it predicted in 2004 something would happen by 2005 that never happened.

See what I mean about bad predictors?

Once they actually get one of these right, I’ll start to pay attention.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
No, Scott, you’re selectively citing. You also ignore the other cite and the argument. Lame. Also, "as early as next year...could..." is not the as "definitely next year...will."
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"IOW, timactual, you aren’t countering anything in my post"

The post where you said "The Pentagon would disagree"? I didn’t need to counter anything, JWG did it quite well by producing the actual "surpressed" report, which countered you. I just pointed out that you were wrong, and your ’source’ is laughable for someone who claims the credentials you do. Get one of your students to show you how to do research.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"The Pentagon would disagree"?
That was a number of posts ago, and I already said that while I’m convinced it was politics that altered that (and still the fact they were considering it proves my point that people in the Pentagon do recognize global warming as a potential threat to the peace), I understand you wouldn’t accept that so I offered a different piece of evidence to support the claim that global warming is a threat to the peace.

So, no, you haven’t responded to anything substantive in the argument. You and JWG are just trying to play gotcha games. Cute, but transparent and meaningless.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
No, Scott, you’re selectively citing. You also ignore the other cite and the argument.
Fine.

Give me three predictions that have come true. Predictions that were not the oposite of the predictions of the previous year.

The flip-flop of "MOre hurricanes" to "Less Hurricanes" was priceless...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Erb still hasn’t read the Pentagon report. Let me repost a portion just to ensure clarity:
In this report, as an alternative to the scenarios of gradual climatic warming that are so common, we outline an abrupt climate change scenario
and
The IPCC documents the threat of gradual climate change and its impact to food supplies and other resources of importance to humans will not be so severe as to create security threats.
The EXACT OPPOSITE of Erb’s point.

The Pentagon report says explicitly that the IPCC documents are not severe enough and pose NO THREAT to security.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://


Give me three predictions that have come true.
So many predictions have come true that people aren’t denying that global warming is existing any more, the evidence has become overwhelming! Now the argument has shifted to, "well, OK, I guess it’s happening, but it has nothing to do with the massive amounts of CO2 we’ve been churning into the atmosphere, it’s all, uh, sun spots, yeah...or...something natural..."

That’s why Gore won the Nobel prize and why except for a small contingent of right wing bloggers and politically inspired cynics (and a few legitimately convinced by their interpretation of the science cynics), most people are really concerned about global warming. You can continue to deny, and be frustrated that people like Gore get such honor. But with sustainability issues becoming common themes on college campuses around the country, Gore’s prize being heralded as catapulting this issue to a new level of importance, and the global warming skeptics increasingly on the margins, I think you will be finding yourself frustrated quite a bit. But you can always find bloggers who will call it a ’religion’ and ridicule it out of political motivation. And there will be those of us who will professionally and personally do everything to make sure those deniers are countered, and that people are given the facts and knowledge to render them immune to such politicization of science.

Oh, and JWG, why do you seem to assume that abrupt global warming isn’t possible? Many scientists consider it quite likely (abrupt meaning within the course of a decade or two). You imply I’m only talking about gradual climate change (and even then I disagree with your interpretation), but that’s not the case.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"But no scientist would ever claim it’s "proven" or "irrefutable."
I couldn’t resist.

You aren’t really paying attention to what I write. Perhaps you should stop commenting if you can’t take the time to carefully consider what is being said.

I wrote REASONABLY irrefutable. There’s a critical difference from what you claim I wrote.

Second, if you don’t think a scientist would claim a theory has been proven or is reasonably irrefutable, go ask your friends about what some scientists refer to as LAWS of Physics and see what they say about their chances of refutation. And just for fun, ask them if they are willing to go on record denying that the following statements are irrefutable:

1. The earth is not flat.
2. The earth orbits the sun.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
"But with sustainability issues becoming common themes on college campuses around the country"
Oh, then it must be real. No one has ever blown anything out of proportion on a college campus before.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
1) The IPCC gets a peace prize because it is believed their claims represent a real possibility for conflict.
2) Erb says even the Pentagon agrees.
3) The actual Pentagon report says the IPCC claims are NOT a threat.
4) Erb continues to flail.

Furthermore, now Erb says:
Many scientists consider it quite likely (abrupt meaning within the course of a decade or two)
You still haven’t even read the report. You have no idea what the report means when it refers to "abrupt climate change."

What was the name of this thread? Oh, yeah — Wow, What a surprise.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Grimshaw: If you want global warming to be supported to the point that the earth orbits the sun, you’re setting an impossible standard. Get real. Global warming doesn’t have the level of substantion as gravity, evolution, or earth as a globe. But does it really need to be supported to that extent to be taken seriously?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Grimshaw: If you want global warming to be supported to the point that the earth orbits the sun, you’re setting an impossible standard. Get real. Global warming doesn’t have the level of substantion as gravity, evolution, or earth as a globe. But does it really need to be supported to that extent to be taken seriously?
If you want to to be accepted as fact...

Yes.

This is science, Erb. I realize your chosen profession doesn’t actually meet it very often, but in that world, there are standards...

You don’t just throw crap out there, yell "Science!!!" and run off, free of the burden of proof.

If Global Warming is real, it can be proven to the extent that Gravity, Earth’s orbit, and 2+2=4.

If it can not be proven to actual degrees of certainty reserved for things that are real, then it likely is not real.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
If Global Warming is real, it can be proven to the extent that Gravity, Earth’s orbit, and 2+2=4.
Scott, you really need to learn more about science. Very few things are supported as well as gravity and earth’s orbit. But even gravity remains a mystery — Einstein’s view was a surprise, and displaced Newton’s, and the cause of gravity remains uncertain — quantum loop gravity, ’gravitons,’ and other mechanisms for gravity are posited. 2+2=4 is different because it’s not science — it’s our own labeling and definitions.

Many things — the big bang, quantum mechanics, the physics of sub atomic particles, and the like — have more questions than answers. They are still scientific studies, and scientists talk about the existence of subatomic particles even though it’s doubtful they are ’particles’ in the sense we usually think of the term.

In fact, as someone else has pointed out in critiquing global warming theory, most scientific theories get displaced over time. A majority get improved or refined, others get overturned. And you don’t know for sure which; the strength of science is that it doesn’t claim things are "proven," only that they are not yet falsified and the evidence seems so far to validate them.

As for global warming, you’ll get no argument for me that it isn’t a proven fact, it’s still a theory with a variety of alternate interpretations. The argument for taking it seriously is that the evidence is strong enough that this could be extremely dangerous that it is prudent to take it seriously.

For instance: you have a garden and the science of meterology predicts frost tonight. It isn’t proven that frost will come — they are often wrong in their predictions. But you still cover your plants because in general their science is pretty good and it’s a prudent thing to do.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Many things — the big bang, quantum mechanics, the physics of sub atomic particles, and the like — have more questions than answers. They are still scientific studies, and scientists talk about the existence of subatomic particles even though it’s doubtful they are ’particles’ in the sense we usually think of the term.
Everything you just named is either labeled "theory" or have been diredctly observed.

Science, Erb, can be proven. If it can not, it is theory. If it can be proven in even one case to be incorrect, it is disproven.

You admit that Global Warming is theory...

You don’t base global policies, you don’t make decisions that will cost trillions of dollars in their implementation, based on theory. You base them on fact.

Global warming is not fact.

So shut the hell up about it, would ya? Bring me proof, or sod off.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Science, Erb, can be proven.
No, you’re wrong. Hypotheses can be falsified, but not proven. You clearly need to learn a bit about the philosophy of science, you’re absolutely wrong here.

And of course global warming is a theory — like gravity, evolution, and everything else taught in science classes.
You don’t base global policies, you don’t make decisions that will cost trillions of dollars in their implementation, based on theory. You base them on fact.

Global warming is not fact.

So shut the hell up about it, would ya? Bring me proof, or sod off.
LOL! You’re so wrong here, it’s funny. Global policies are always made on theories, interpretations of reality. You just don’t understand science or global politics. You really need to educate yourself. I’ll help you if you wish.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider