• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Just wondering

Mike

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
how come none of you guys have mentioned the Noble prize winner,pretty impressive award. :D

When Yasser Arafat can win the Peace prize, it makes it a joke.

When AlGore can win it, it makes it a shame.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
:???: I'm kind of disapointed in you guys,cause Fox News was pretty impressed


AP


Sept. 26: Former Vice President Al Gore onstage during the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York.
Sept. 26: Former Vice President Al Gore onstage during the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York.
OSLO, Norway — 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.

Gore, 59, who won an Academy Award earlier this year for his film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," had been widely tipped to win the prize.

"I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize," Gore said. "We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Natural Science Center.

He said that global warming was not a political issue but a worldwide crisis.

"We face a true planetary emergency. ... It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity," he said. "It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level."

The Norwegian Nobel Committee chairman, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, asserted that the prize was not aimed at the Bush administration, which abandoned efforts to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol climate treaty and was widely criticized outside the U.S. for not taking global warming seriously enough.

RelatedStories
British Court Rules Al Gore Film Exaggerated Climate Claims Rising Humidity May Make Global Warming Worse Melting Polar Ice Forces Walrus South Scientist: Greenhouse-Gas Levels Already Past 'Worst-Case' Scenario "A peace prize is never a criticism of anything. A peace prize is a positive message and support to all those champions of peace in the world."

"We would encourage all countries, including the big countries, to challenge, all of them, to think again and to say what can they do to conquer global warming," Mjoes said. "The bigger the powers, the better that they come in front of this."

The win is also likely add further fuel to a burgeoning movement in the United States for Gore to run for president in 2008, which he has so far said he does not plan to do.

"I want this prize to have everyone ... every human being, asking what they should do," Mjoes said. "What he [Gore] decides to do from here is his personal decision."

However, when asked about the 2008 U.S. elections, he said: "I am very much in support for all who support changes."

Two Gore advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to share his thinking, said the award will not make it more likely that he will seek the presidency.

If anything, the Peace Prize makes the rough-and-tumble of a presidential race less appealing to Gore, they said, because now he has a huge, international platform to fight global warming and may not want to do anything to diminish it.

One of the advisers said that while Gore is unlikely to rule out a bid in the coming days, the prospects of the former vice president entering the fray in 2008 are "extremely remote."

Kenneth Sherrill, a political scientist at Hunter College in New York, said Gore probably enjoys being a public person more than an elected official.

"He seems happier and liberated in the years since his loss in 2000. Perhaps winning the Nobel and being viewed as a prophet in his own time will be sufficient," says Sherrill.

Gore, who was an advocate of stemming climate change and global warning well before his eight years as vice president, called the award meaningful because of his co-winner, calling the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the "world's pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis."

Gore plans to donate his half of the $1.5 million prize money to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan nonprofit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion worldwide about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.

In its citation, the committed lauded Gore's "strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

The last American to win the prize, or share it, was former President Carter, who won it 2002.

At the time, then-committee chairman Gunnar Berge called the prize "a kick in the leg" to the Bush administration for its threats of war against Iraq. In response, some members of the secretive committee criticized Berge for expressing personal views in the panel's name.

Mjoes, elected to succeed Berge a few months later, referred to that dispute on Friday, saying the committee "has never given a kick in the leg to anyone."

The White House said the prize was not seen as increasing pressure on the administration or showing that President Bush's approach missed the mark.

"Of course he's happy for Vice President Gore," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "He's happy for the international panel on climate change scientists who also shared the peace prize. Obviously it's an important recognition."

Fratto said Bush has no plans to call Gore.

Bush abandoned efforts to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate because he said it would harm the U.S. economy and because it did not require immediate cuts by countries like China and India.

The treaty aimed to put the biggest burden on the richest nations that contributed the most carbon emissions.

The U.S. Senate voted against mandatory carbon reductions before the Kyoto negotiations were completed. The treaty was never presented to the Senate for ratification by the Clinton Administration.

In its citation, the committee said that Gore "has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians" and cited his awareness at an early stage "of the climatic challenges the world is facing.

"Al Gore has fought the environment battle even as vice president," Mjoes said. "Many did not listen ... but he carried on."

The committee cited the IPCC for its two decades of scientific reports that have "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming."

It went on to say that because of the panel's efforts, global warming has been increasingly recognized.

In the 1980s it "seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent."

The committee said global warming "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."

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, said he and Gore really had 2,000 co-laureates — each of the scientists in the U.N. panel's research network.

"This award also thrusts a new responsibility on our shoulders," Pachauri said. "We have to do more, and we have many more miles to go."

Members of the panel were surprised that it was chosen to share the honor with Gore, a spokeswoman said.

"We would have been happy even if he had received it alone, because it is a recognition of the importance of this issue," spokeswoman Carola Traverso Saibante said.

The panel forecast this year that all regions of the world will be affected by climate warming and that a third of the Earth's species will vanish if global temperatures continue to rise until they are 3.6 degrees above the average temperature in the 1980s and '90s.

"Decisive action in the next decade can still avoid some of the most catastrophic scenarios the IPCC has forecast," said Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official.

He urged consensus among the United States and other countries on attacking the problem.

Gore supporters have been raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for petition drives and advertising in an effort to lure him into the Democratic presidential primaries.

One group, Draftgore.com, ran a full-page open letter to Gore in Wednesday's New York Times, imploring him to get into the race.

Gore has been coy, saying repeatedly he's not running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, without ever closing that door completely.

He was the Democratic nominee in 2000 and won the general election popular vote. However, Gore lost the electoral vote to George W. Bush after a legal challenge to the Florida result that was decided by the Supreme Court.

Some questioned the prize decision.

"Awarding it to Al Gore cannot be seen as anything other than a political statement. Awarding it to the IPCC is well-founded," said Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist."

He criticized Gore's film as having "some very obvious mistakes, like the argument that we're going to see six meters of sea-level rise," he said.

"They [Nobel committee] have a unique platform in getting people's attention on this issue, and I regret they have used it to make a political statement."

A British judge said in a ruling published Wednesday that some assertions in Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" were not supported by scientific evidence. The case involved a challenge from a school official who did not want the film shown to students.

The ruling detailed High Court Judge Michael Burton's decision this month to allow screenings of the film in English secondary schools. The judge said that written guidance to teachers, designed to ensure Gore's views are not presented uncritically, must accompany the screenings.

This year, climate change has been at the top of the world agenda.

The U.N. climate panel has been releasing its reports; talks on a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol are set to resume; and on Europe's northern fringe, where the awards committee works, concern about the melting Arctic has been underscored by this being the International Polar Year.

Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, said the prize would help to continue the globally growing awareness of climate change.

"Their contributions to the prevention of climate change have raised awareness all over the world. Their work has been an inspiration for politicians and citizens alike," he said in a statement.

Jan Egeland, a Norwegian peace mediator and former U.N. undersecretary for humanitarian affairs, also called climate change more than an environmental issue.

"It is a question of war and peace," said Egeland, now director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo. "We're already seeing the first climate wars, in the Sahel belt of Africa."

He said nomads and herders are in conflict with farmers because the changing climate has brought drought and a shortage of fertile lands.

In recent years, the Norwegian committee has broadened its interpretation of peacemaking and disarmament efforts outlined by Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel in creating the prize with his 1895 will.

The prize now often also recognizes human rights, democracy, elimination of poverty, sharing resources and the environment.

"We believe that the Nobel Committee has shown great courage by so clearly connecting the climate problems with peace," said Truls Gulowsen, head of environmental group Greenpeace Norway.

The committee often uses the coveted prize to cast the global spotlight on a relatively little-known person or cause.

Two of the past three prizes have been untraditional, with the 2004 award to Kenya environmentalist Wangari Maathai and last year's award to Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank, which makes to micro-loans to the country's poor.

Since Gore already has a high profile some had doubted that the committee would bestow the prize on him "because he does not need it."

The Nobel Prizes each bestow a gold medal, a diploma and a $1.5 million cash prize on the winner.

The prize for economics will be announced Monday.

Fox.news.com
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Mrs G, you need to understand that anything done on behalf of mankind in general is part of a liberal bias and conspiracy and not to be trusted. If someone does it to be self serving for self aggrandizement then the masses of neocons proclaim him a hero and point to the "self made" when others point to the poverty and despair that infects the majority of the world. After all, GW although born to the wealthy, earned his way to the presidency through scholarship, perseverance and hard work. Bankrupting several companies prepared him well for bankrupting his country. Thus he is a hero to the many sycophants found in the 23% of the blind followers of the Limbaugh/O'Reilly cadre.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
If anyone but Al Gore had produced that movie, it would stand a better chance of being taken seriously by the masses. I don't know how the powers that be decide who gets the Nobel Peace Prize, but I have my ideas, considering some of who recieved it in the past.

Maybe you would like to go back to the days before the combustible engine, but not me.

And the jury is still out on global warming.
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
If anyone but Al Gore had produced that movie, it would stand a better chance of being taken seriously by the masses. I don't know how the powers that be decide who gets the Nobel Peace Prize, but I have my ideas, considering some of who recieved it in the past.
The masses have obviously received it well. It is just the neocons who fail to recognize reality when it conflicts with talking points.

Faster horses said:
And the jury is still out on global warming.
Not really.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I think it was great...a true honor and well deserved!!!

I like him......I voted for him....I would again ( but he's not gonna run)!!!
 

Texan

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Faster horses said:
If anyone but Al Gore had produced that movie, it would stand a better chance of being taken seriously by the masses. I don't know how the powers that be decide who gets the Nobel Peace Prize, but I have my ideas, considering some of who recieved it in the past.
The masses have obviously received it well. It is just the neocons who fail to recognize reality when it conflicts with talking points.

You mean "neocons" like Justice Burton at the High Court in London? The guy who agreed with a lot of the film:

...he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.


But even though he agreed with a lot of it and ruled that the film was “broadly accurate".....

He also ruled that...

...some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

And...

Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece

Goodpasture said:
It is just the neocons who fail to recognize reality when it conflicts with talking points.

I guess Justice Burton is part of the Bush/Cheney "neocon" team? :lol:
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
If you had bothered reading the the good judge's decision with clarity, you would see that the primary difficulty the judge had with Gores assessment was the time line, not the end result nor the science involved. As Gore spent several years consulting with scientists from around the world who are known for their research in the subject as well as for their integrity, and that the judge is basing his decision on a narrow interpretation of the research that Gore performed, I would trust Gore's results more than I would the judge's. Further, I prefer to prepare for a worst case scenario over a best case scenario. The judge did not say it wasn't happening, he said it wasn't happening in the time frame that Gore said it would. There is also the issue of the judge himself being properly vetted. Not knowing anything about him, I would dare say he might be an expert in law, but very likely has no standing whatsoever in the scientific community. All this separates the judge from the neocons as the judge is at least paying attention. All neocons do is pay homage to biased pseudo-scientists.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
All neocons do is pay homage to biased pseudo-scientists.
"Biased pseudo-scientists"? So...if they don't agree with you, attack their credibility? This is a pattern for you, isn't it?
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
No, I am not a scientist, I'm an appraiser.....more of a reporter. I have problems with pseudo-scientists on the payroll of big tobacco claiming cigarettes don't harm anyone. I have problems with pseudo-scientists on the payroll of big oil claiming global warming is either "natural" or non-existent when the rest of the scientists in the world are trying to sound an alarm. Much like the pseudo-fireman saying everything is fine despite the smoke and flames you can see over there and ignore the rest of the fire department trying to get us to evacuate.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Czech president Vaclav Klaus: "surprised" at Nobel prize for Gore

Prague (dpa) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a rare vocal global- warming sceptic among heads of state, is "somewhat surprised" that former US vice president Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, the president's spokesman Petr Hajek said in a statement.

"The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct," the statement said. "It rather seems that Gore's doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace."

Klaus said in a recent speech that environmentalists' efforts to halt global warming "fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity."

The Czech president publicly expresses doubt on what scientists, including those participating in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate, deem very likely - that global warming is caused by humans.

He also said that rising temperatures may not matter enough for governments to throw funds at halting the process.

In a newspaper interview earlier this year, Klaus said that only Al Gore, and not a sane person, would say that mankind is ruining the planet.

The Czech president has also recently participated in Gore-bashing newspaper advertisements ran by The Heartland Institute, a conservative US think tank.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Czech president Vaclav Klaus: "surprised" at Nobel prize for Gore

Prague (dpa) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a rare vocal global- warming sceptic among heads of state, is "somewhat surprised" that former US vice president Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, the president's spokesman Petr Hajek said in a statement.

"The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct," the statement said. "It rather seems that Gore's doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace."

Klaus said in a recent speech that environmentalists' efforts to halt global warming "fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity."

The Czech president publicly expresses doubt on what scientists, including those participating in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate, deem very likely - that global warming is caused by humans.

He also said that rising temperatures may not matter enough for governments to throw funds at halting the process.

In a newspaper interview earlier this year, Klaus said that only Al Gore, and not a sane person, would say that mankind is ruining the planet.

The Czech president has also recently participated in Gore-bashing newspaper advertisements ran by The Heartland Institute, a conservative US think tank.



Is this all you got? The Czech Pres??? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
I thought he expressed himself very well. His thoughts agreed with mine. Are you looking for evidence against the global warming theory or looking for evidence that your cousin wouldn't know anything about anything? I sure hated to see him shave his beard though. He looked pretty funny. :lol:
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
I have looked into the czech presidents comments. Here they are. He has an 82 percent approval rating according to the article. I wish he could run for President here.

Saturday, February 10, 2007 ... /////
Vaclav Klaus on global warming
Czech President explains his views on the IPCC panel


Update: Václav Klaus is just visiting Japan and his Japanese notes contain a message to the American non-Al-Gores. Please distribute the link if you like it.





.........This experience hasn't stopped Klaus - who currently enjoys 82% support of the citizens - from analyzing the international climate panel of the United Nations (IPCC). In an interview with "Hospodářské noviny", a Czech financial daily, Klaus answered a couple of questions (well, more precisely, the interview took place yesterday although it was published today, on 02/09/2007; the translation from Czech to Czenglish is due to your humble correspondent):

[Questions and answers related to EU politics are skipped; the full translation was published on 02/14/2007 in Prague Monitor]
...
Q: On Wednesday, the European Commission (EC) has approved limits on carbon dioxide emissions for new cars. One week ago, the U.N. climate panel (IPCC AR4) released a report that has described, much like previous reports, the global warming as one of the major threats for the whole civilization. The Stern review about similar threats was published before that. At the same time, you decide to declare that the global warming is a myth. Try to explain, how did you get your idea?
A: The idea is not mine. Global warming is a myth and I think that every serious person and scientist says so. It is unfair to refer to the United Nations panel. IPCC is not a scientific body: it's a political institution, a kind of non-government organization with green flavor. It's not a forum of neutral scientists or a balanced group of scientists. Its members are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided sentiments and one-sided tasks. Also, it's an undignified practical joke that people don't wait for the complete report that will appear in May 2007 but instead react, in such a serious manner, to the summary for policy makers where all the "ifs" and "whens" and "buts" are scratched, erased, and replaced by oversimplified theses.
This is obviously such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians... If the European Commission were instantly going to buy such a trick, we would have another solid reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar matters.

Q: How do you explain that we can't see any other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would defend your viewpoint? No one else seems to offer such strong opinions...
A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-tier politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voices.


Q: But you are not a climatologist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?
A: Environmentalism as a meta-physical ideology and as a world view has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or the climate itself. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Despite these facts, it is getting fashionable and this process scares me. The second part of the assertion should be: we also have plenty of reports, studies, and books of climate scientists whose conclusions are diametrically opposite.
You're right that I never measure the width of ice in Antarctica. Indeed, I don't know how to do it, I don't intend to learn it, and I don't pretend to be an expert in such measurements. Nevertheless, as a scientifically inclined man, I know how to read science articles about these questions, e.g. about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. The papers I have read simply don't lead to the conclusions we may see in the media. But let me promise you something: this topic worries me which is why I began to write an article about it last Christmas. The article grew in size and it turned into a book (Blue, not Green Planet). In a few months, it will be published. Among seven chapters, one will organize my opinions about the climate change.
Environmentalism and the green ideology are something very different from climate science. Various screams and findings of scientists are misused by this ideology.

Q: What do you think is the reason that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media interpret the global warming as a well-established fact?
A: It is not quite precisely divided to the right-wingers and left-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of contemporary leftism.

Q: If you look at these things, even if you were right...
A: ...I am right...

Q: ...Don't we have empirical evidence and facts accessible to our eyes that imply that Man is ruining the planet and himself?
A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not yet heard a greater nonsense.


This page was the 8th hottest page of the global blogosphere on Feb 13, 2007. See also conversation tracker. Besides a thousand of blogs, a special report at the Drudge Report, and the Washington Times - where congratulations from James Inhofe were also reported - the interview was publicized at Foxnews (video).
Q: Don't you believe that we're demolishing our planet?
A: Let me pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore can argue along these lines: a sane person hardly. I don't see any destruction of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a sensible and serious person might say that he has. Look: you belong to the economic media so we should expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will clarify these questions. For instance, we know that there exists a strong correlation between the care we give to our environment on one side and the technological prowess and wealth on the other side. It's obvious that the poorer the societies are, the more roughly they behave towards Nature, and vice versa: the richer they become, the more they care about the environment.
It's also the case that there exist social systems that are damaging the environment - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the free societies. These tendencies become crucial in the long term. They unquestionably imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected incomparably more than on February 8th ten, fifty, or one hundred years ago.
That's the reason why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you told me? Perhaps when you're unconscious? Or was it meant merely as a provocation? And I may perhaps be just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to present all these answers to you, am I not? It is more likely that you simply present your honest opinion.
...
[Questions and Klaus' answers about Czech politics followed; the full translation was published on 02/14/2007 in Prague Monitor]
 

Texan

Well-known member
Mike summed up this whole topic with just two sentences:

Mike said:
When Yasser Arafat can win the Peace prize, it makes it a joke.

When AlGore can win it, it makes it a shame.

That should be the end of the discussion.
 

Texan

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Why,cause you said So?
If things happened just because I wanted them to, the buzzards would probably be peckin' at your eyeballs and the rest of you would be buzzard sht shortly thereafter.

Just jokin'. :wink:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
I thought he expressed himself very well. His thoughts agreed with mine. Are you looking for evidence against the global warming theory or looking for evidence that your cousin wouldn't know anything about anything? I sure hated to see him shave his beard though. He looked pretty funny. :lol:


Gore is not my cousin.


What's funny is that you had to go all the way to Czech Pres to find someone who agreed with you!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Top