Al Gore Accepts Nobel Peace Prize: “It is Time to Make Peace with the Planet”
[Guest post by DRJ]
Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today in Norway and he immediately directed dire awarnings about climate change at the United States and China:
“Al Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize on Monday and urged the United States and China to make the boldest moves on climate change or “stand accountable before history for their failure to act.” In accepting the prize he shared with the U.N. climate panel, the former vice president said humanity risks sliding down a path of “mutually assured destruction.”
“It is time to make peace with the planet,” Gore said in his acceptance speech that quoted Churchill, Gandhi and the Bible. “We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war.”
Gore’s warnings of the planet’s destruction came amid a “gala” event before royalty, world leaders, and other guests:
“We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency – a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here,” Gore said at the gala ceremony in Oslo’s city hall, in front of Norway’s royalty, leaders and invited guests.”
Gore plans to leave Norway and fly to Bali to join climate talks designed to reduce climate-damaging carbon dioxide emissions (e.g., things that result from jetting from Norway to Bali):
“His remarks came as governments met in Bali, Indonesia, to start work on a new international treaty to reduce climate-damaging carbon dioxide emissions. Gore and Pachauri plan to fly there Wednesday to join the climate talks.”
Winners of the Nobel Prize receive “a gold medal, a diploma and a $1.6 million cash award.”
— DRJ
Just how much carbon are these Global Warming Acolytes putting into the air to get to these events to preach to the rest of us?
Maybe those who worship at this religion should be treated like Edith Bunker and told to “Stifle it!”
PCD (09d6a8) — 12/10/2007 @ 12:34 pmAh…the STFU approach. That’ll certainly make the issue of climate change go away.
Tom (4ee15d) — 12/10/2007 @ 12:38 pm2, you worshippers of consensus and junk science wrongly think it is man that causes climate change. How has man caused climate change on Mars?
Better yet, with the fossil record of climate change, how did cave men cause it?
PCD (09d6a8) — 12/10/2007 @ 12:47 pmOh, again with the rhetorical domination! I don’t know why I even try.
Tom (4ee15d) — 12/10/2007 @ 12:49 pmTom, maybe it is because you are mentally ill and cannot accept there are cause and effect counter arguments you can not refute, or that when the methodology of your “science” is examined, it is little more than that of religious faith?
PCD (09d6a8) — 12/10/2007 @ 12:51 pmOr maybe it is because of something my grandpa once taught me: “Don’t wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty but the pig likes it.”
Peace be unto you, PCD. Truly.
Tom (4ee15d) — 12/10/2007 @ 12:55 pmPCD, let’s focus on the subject and not each other. It’s Patterico’s house and I don’t want to get kicked out for hosting wild parties while he’s at work.
DRJ (a6fcd2) — 12/10/2007 @ 12:58 pmDRJ,
I am focusing on the subject. You can’t get through to those who view global warming as anything but a religion. I asked a few questions where if Tom had any facts and actually knew any science could have tried to refute hard facts and common sense.
PCD (09d6a8) — 12/10/2007 @ 1:08 pmYou cannot reason a man out of that which he was not reasoned into.
Pablo (99243e) — 12/10/2007 @ 1:09 pmYou lost me with ‘It Is Time to Make Peace with the Planet’.
Gag.
Dana (b4a26c) — 12/10/2007 @ 1:12 pmFacts:
A. Atmospheric CO2 occurs naturally. According to NASA, 100 billion metric tons (BMT) come from the oceans, 30 BMT come from biomass decay, 30 BMT come from respiration. Only 6 BMT come from fossil fuel.
B. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas – 1/1000th as effective as water vapor. Search for the Faithful Heretic (Dr. Reid Bryson).
C. CO2 levels follow warming trends, therefore cannot be causal. Current increases are as a result of the end of the little ice age.
D. Some scientists believe that climate change is a result of variations in output of solar radiation.
E. For the past 2 million years, ice ages occur have occurred on Milankovitch cycles – convergence of astrophysical variations in the earth’s motion. Axial tilt, precession and eliptical eccentricity seem to align with the climate record data.
F. Climate changes are stochastic – virtually impossible to predict with any accuracy.
I do not know what causes the earth’s climate to change and neither does the Al Gore. The cause does not appear to be carbon dioxide.
If we knew the cause could we change it? I think not. See Dr. Bjorn Lomborg on YouTube.
arch (2fee36) — 12/10/2007 @ 1:14 pmDeroy Murdock, at NRO, on Al Gore and Climate Science
LarryD (feb78b) — 12/10/2007 @ 1:14 pmPCD, I have no reason to believe from your earlier statements that you are willing to engage in discussion sans personal attacks. You strike me as arrogant, abrasive, and wild-eyed. Why in the world should I submit to your demands for an argument, when you’ve already demonstrated that no matter what my response, (a) you’ll likely resort to personal attacks, and (b) you clearly caricature opposing viewpoints instead of engaging them at face value? What could I possibly gain from this arrangement other than a profound loss of time and expenditure of patience?
Tom (4ee15d) — 12/10/2007 @ 1:16 pmFurther disagreement with the “We are killing the planet” meme.
There’s a reason Gore didn’t get the Prize for any kind of science. Mainly, that reason would be “Because his BS isn’t backed by any”.
Scott Jacobs (425810) — 12/10/2007 @ 1:30 pmFacts:
A. In 1970, the Canadians estimated the polar bear population at 5,000 to 10,000. By 2005, their estimate was 20,000 to 25,000.
B. In 1350 AD, Vikings chaanged their sailing instructions to include icebergs near Greenland. Previously, they had farmed the glacier free island.
c. 70% of 20th Century warming occurred before 1940, long before the increase in fossil fuel consumption. From 1940 to 1970, temperatures declined enough to make scientists believe we were entering another glacial period (ice age).
d. 4,000 BC surface temperatures averaged 18° C – 3° C higher than today. Mankind and polar bears survived.
arch (2fee36) — 12/10/2007 @ 1:33 pmTom’s a victim, but is unwilling to engage in personal attacks.
Right – “You strike me as arrogant, abrasive, and wild-eyed.”
Try again, Tom, your act isn’t working.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/10/2007 @ 1:36 pmShouldn’t the Goracle only be getting half a medal? Seem to remember that this prize did not go to him and him alone, no matter how many times folks present it that way.
Well “half-Nobel laureate Al Gore” doesn’t have the same ring, I guess.
Uncle Pinky (3c2c13) — 12/10/2007 @ 2:15 pmThe current models for global change agree with Al Gore (less his hyperbolic, Noah’s flood statements of course). If a scientist comes up with good data that changes that model then it will be incorporated into a newer, better approximation of what is thought to be true (sorry, that’s as good as it gets in science).
The journal “Science” (the pre-eminent journal in the U.S.) will publish credible evidence to the contrary of current thought because 1. it will advance the discipline, and 2. it will sell more copy. Science is a for profit journal, not a publication from a “think tank”. They published a nay-sayer immediately after the articles talking about “more, and larger hurricanes due to Global warming” came out in Science in 2005-2006 after Katrina, and it made people do their homework and do better analyses.
As nay-sayers in the global change discipline continue to provide credible evidence (sorry but even a cursory glance at Mr. Lomborg’s figures in his book Sceptical Environmentalist show that he is not a credible commenter on this debate. There are several de-bunking websites, look them up yourself) the science will get better and more precise.
The real debate centers around the level of certainty at which persons around the planet (particularly industrialized countries) should expend real money to combat global warming. (although apparently you can do something just by making some lifestyle changes that don’t involve buying an entire $20,000.00 solar array ). At some point policy level decisions will be /have been made that require dough/regulation etc. which are all things that everyone hates (even “liberals” who kvetch about 3$ gas like everyone else). Does anyone know of a decent risk analysis that addressed the costs of accepting and implementing any of the various global change mitigation policies out there?
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/10/2007 @ 2:56 pmAl Gore Nobel acceptance speech: “When the moon is in the 7th house and Jupiter aligns with Mars, then peace will guide the planets, and love will steer the stars …”
John425 (eae6ea) — 12/10/2007 @ 3:04 pmEdWood, agree with Al Gore? But an amusing caveat you place there Ed. Agree with Al Gore except for his gross exaggerations.
The IPCC claims that global warming would cause increased hurricanes was not contradicted by a mere “nay sayer” but in fact one of the leading authorities in hurricane science Chris Landsea who in fact resigned from the IPCC committee because such claims were being made without any scientific basis.
There is in fact quite a bit of uncertainty in the global warming argument, not least because of the behavior of many in the AGW community who are not behaving in a manner consistent with real science. Hidden methodologies, concealed data, “studies” that can’t be reproduced and the AGW community’s fondness for replying to criticism with ad hominem argument all cast serious doubt on the credibility of the AGW community.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/10/2007 @ 3:07 pmArch, interestingly, NASA published a recent report that asserts that the changes in the Arctic ice noticed in the ’90’s were in fact due to periodic changes in circulation patterns and not global warming.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/10/2007 @ 3:09 pmEdWood #18:
Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg.
DRJ (a6fcd2) — 12/10/2007 @ 3:30 pmHalp me Ale! I em skeert!!
Patricia (aaa977) — 12/10/2007 @ 4:28 pm“It is time to start making peace with the planet.”
Who do we negotiate with?
How do we verify the agreement?
What happens if it snows for two or three years?
When people don’t believe in something, they will believe in anything.
BTW, why isn’t the Darwin Principal working here?
There sure are a lot of defective genes in the tide-pool.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 12/10/2007 @ 7:03 pmIn a bet between Al Gore and the planet, I bet on the planet.
DRJ (a6fcd2) — 12/10/2007 @ 7:06 pmGo Mom!
Another Drew (8018ee) — 12/10/2007 @ 7:17 pmEdWood – “The current models for global change agree with Al Gore” A big no shit sherlock to you for that comment at least for the alarmist AGW models. They were rigged to agree with Captain Planet, that’s the whole point!
Have you seen the studies taking those models back a few years and using them to predict today’s climate? They do a piss poor job Ed. The game is rigged.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/10/2007 @ 10:51 pmDaleyrocks, I think you are confusing the policy actions on Global Change with the science. The models are just the models, nothing more, that put forth an idea. The current models are much better then the older ones and include things like cooling effects from increased evpotranspriation of water vapor into the atmosphere. The push that brought about better models came from solid researchers like Chris Landsea who is credible and respected.
Hey if you think models are no good to base policy on coz they aren’t accurate enough then, of course, you are willing to give up the entire idea of a “free market” economy right? Since the concept of a workable real free market, or of an economy that at least approaches a free market is based on models that, by necessity, have to simplify some things, ie. don’t accurately reflect the real world. There is lots of policy being made and money being shuffled around based on the idea that a free market is the best regulator of commerce… but since the free market models aren’t perfect we should not make policy based on them…. is that what you are saying?
The reason I don’t like Al Gore’s more hysterical claims in his movie/talk (which he has tried to explain away to no effect) is that it decreases the credibility of more substantiated claims (more unpredictable weather patterns-not hurricanes by the way, heating and cooling at the poles not as much in the tropics etc.) which, I suppose he thought weren’t “dramatic” enough. How do you convince people that an overall 4 degree increase in temperature at the poles might (and there is the really tough part; HONESTLY all you get to say is “might” or “maybe” or “there is a x% probability) really cramp their grandkids’ or great-grandkids’ style? Claiming that all the coastal cities in the world are going to drown in the next, what 50 years? Isn’t going to do it.
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/11/2007 @ 8:39 amEdWood, your analogy of modeling the climate to the free market is completely invalid. The strength of a free market is explicitly that it does not use a single “model” but rather is the accumulated “knowledge” of a myriad of individuals making decisions for the buying and selling of a commodity/product/security.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/11/2007 @ 8:45 amDRJ,
Thanks for the book tip, I’;ll check it out. I don’t have a lot of faith in Mr Lomborg’s candor since I read Sceptical Environmentalist because he added some obviously misleading figure into his text. However I liked some of the sections of the book (been a while since I read it) particularly those that deal with economic consequences of some of the proposed global change policies at the time.
If people eventually accept that global change is real, whether or not it is caused by humans or sun-spots. There will need to be a careful economic analysis of any proposed large mitigating policies, because economic and political disruptions often can cause more environmental damage than “polluters” ever could dream of.
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/11/2007 @ 8:48 amSPQR,
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/11/2007 @ 8:49 amBut the theoretical basis of the workability of a
“free market” is based on models. That was my analogy, not of how the market is supposed to work.
The Cray pushed computer modeling into weather predictions 20 years ago. Collect precise weather data from an array of sensors all over the world and integrate them into a single, unified system. Sounds simple enough
What computer scientists encountered was “Chaos.” In a book by that name there was an example. If a butterfly lands on a leaf in , we must account for the air moved by his wings. Modelers realized that while the machines could do the processing, they could not adequately define the system. There are too many interacting variables (butterflies) and unknown unknowns (Mt. Pinatubo).
Weather is an extremely complex stochastic system. Forecasters give us “a 60% chance of rain.” In last week’s forecast, yesterday was supposed to have been 70°; it was 81°. If a forecaster misses a five day prognostication by 11°, how can we believe predictions decades or centuries out? It’s a fool’s errand.
There are many who agree with me. My apologies for the links.
A. Professor Reid Bryson, Climatologist. Dr. Bryson is the father of climate science.
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
B. UK Channel 4 – British Skeptics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JNCgoiGYjM&mode=related&search=
C. CBC: Global Warming, Doomsday Called off (5 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
D. Professor Bjorn Lomborg, Economist. Tells the world we can’t afford the solve it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs
E. The Guy from Boston on Global Warming. (Mature language and drink no liquids while watching his video. They will be explosively expelled through your nostrils.)
arch (2fee36) — 12/11/2007 @ 10:56 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JoaS7CA03s
Case in point. Just saw this
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/11/2007 @ 11:38 am(http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/
121107_global_warming.htm) from the canadian free press via prison planet (my fave conspiracy theory site). John Christy and others have just put out a major challenge to current global change ideas based on satellite data. This will all be parsed and analyzed and will either not stand up to scrutiny or will catalyze changes in the science and in the models.
If the natural warming model prevails no doubt the debate will shift to what to do, do we need to do anything, can we do anything etc.etc.