Al Gore Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize

Posted by on 2/1/2007

Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.  Not quite sure what global warming has to do with peace, but then again Arafat and Carter won the prize!

Allah lays out his odds:

I’d say he’s the favorite. He’s got competition from a local boy who brought calm to Indonesia and of course you can’t count out the Chinese Muslim, who, after all, belongs to a religion founded on peace. But they can always get it later. There’s an election coming up in America and nothing would put wind in the Gorebot’s sails among the left like a head pat from one of the international community’s most august institutions. It’d be an A++ on John Kerry’s “global test.” The Committee’s got a track record for playing politics with the award, too. Remember back a few years ago when they tweaked Bush by giving it to Jimmy Jew-blamer?

Let’s look at who the forgot to give one to:

Mahatma Gandhi ,Pope John XXIII, Steve Biko, Hélder Câmara, Raphael Lemkin and Oscar Romero.

National News, Smack of the Week, , , , ,

38 Comments.

  1. Eben 2/1/2007 at February 1, 2007 - 07:01 PM

    here’s a clue…

    Global warming if left unchecked will obliterated the freaking planet and even your warlord Bush won’t be able to screw with world peace.

    We’ll all be blown into the stratosphere or paddling makeshift rafts.

    YOU do the math:roll:

  2. snowy egret 2/1/2007 at February 1, 2007 - 10:15 PM

    Another undeserving recipieant of the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE he is better off getting the BOOBIE PRIZE instead:razz:

  3. Robert 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 02:25 AM

    #1 Yes it’s true!!! :shock: Immediately turn over your money, your rights, and your future to Al Gore and the International Socialists! In return they will stop Global Warming and save the planet! But you must hurry! Unless they get what they want right away, it will be too late!

    :lol:

  4. Matthias Roggenbuck 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 03:31 AM

    3-
    With these kind of comments which end up in the statement “liberal=socialist/communist”, you simply disqualify yourself from any mature/seriously perceived discussion!

    Actually:
    Did any of you righties ever notice that any of your basic assumptions of the last five years blows up like a soap bubble?
    “Bringing war to Iraq minimizes terrorism and brings safety to the region” – NO: more terror and civil war are the result!
    “The fiends who were responsible for 9/11 will be punished” – NO, Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are alive and kicking and more than 3,000 US Soldiers are dead!
    “There is no manmade global warming” – NO: the latest UNO report reveals that to be a lie!
    “The US foreign policy mades the world more safe” – NO: North Corea is quite likely to have the bomb, Teheran may only need two more years to have it and additionally to the 9/11 there have been terror assaults in London, Spain and elsewhere…

  5. Matthias Roggenbuck 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 04:46 AM

    Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

    :mrgreen:

  6. AKD 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 05:46 AM

    Ich grüße dich, Matthias!

    I’m sure that the Right Voices Amateur Climatological Society will carefully consider the article you linked to. :smile:

    Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

    Amazing…

    Does the RVACS have any response???

  7. Matthias Roggenbuck 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 06:08 AM

    6- “I’m sure that the Right Voices Amateur Climatological Society will carefully consider the article you linked to.”

    No, I don’t think so…
    I mean the article and the IPCC report don’t cover biblical aspects, right? This heretical socialist islamofascist (etc.) junk!!!

    -> :mrgreen:

  8. Peejz 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 08:11 AM

    Are the scientists submitting pro global warming studies doing it for free?

  9. Robert 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 10:50 AM

    AKD, Eben, and Matthias are apparently all active, zealous members of Al Gore’s Church of global Warming, the newerst Leftist religion.

    AKD if you actually knew about some of the science involved, rather than digesting then regurgitating rhetoric and propaganda, you just might have some doubts of your own. Of course that takes some native common sense, so it might not be possible for you.

    CO2 is a very minor player in the Greenhouse Gas portfolio. For example, water vapor is 30 to 100 times as effective a GG as CO2. Methane is also more effective as a GG than CO2. Human contribution to CO2 is a very small percentage of the total; most, along with Methane and water vapor, comes from natural sources. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 3% at most of all CO2 generated is from human activity. So you have a small percentage of a minor player in the GG gas arena. And the “greenhouse effect” from the sun’s energy as a contributor to earth temperature is not understood. At best it is just one component to be input to a computer model, that’s it. (All this info is from NASA, btw).

    So not a few, but the 15,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon Petition Project, plus countless others who DO NOT have any vested interests, rightly point out that human contribution to GW is a HYPOTHESIS, and nothing more.

    EVERYONE who is now asserting that human activity is causing GW falls into one of the following categories:

    1. Scientists or other researchers who have a vested interest in promoting the GW hoax.
    2. International Socialists who want control over other nation’s economies and other people’s lives.
    3. Fraud artists and hucksters like Al Gore who see this issue as the ticket to notoriety, the limelight.
    4. Religious zealots, typically Liberals and ecowackos, who have accepted the Church of Global Warming doctrine faithfully
    5. Politicians who want to jump on the bandwagon for political promotion and self-interest.
    6. Dopes who think it sounds so wonderful they’re on board, they’re on the bandwagon, they’re just oh-so-ecological.
    7. Wankers who hate capitalism, hate the U.S. because we use more energy per capita than the mud people, hate SUVs, hate everything traditional.
    8. Weak-minded individuals, trendoids, who have no capacity to think for themselves, no fundamental common sense, and just go with the flow du jour of their peers (this actually might be the same as #6. lots of crossover here).

    Which category(s) do you fit in, AKDemocrat, Eben, Matthias?

  10. Drake 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 12:04 PM

    It’s interesting how someone can be opposed to medical testing on animals yet demand medical testing on human fetuses. It’s interesting how someone can be for groups like the ACLU protecting certain parts of the bill of rights, yet totally against other groups like the NRA protecting certain parts of the bill of rights. It’s interesting how someone can be aghast at our great grand children being stuck with the bill for our federal deficit, yet favor sticking them with trillions more dollars thrown at a problem without a shred of evidence that it will correct the problem, much less even slow it down significantly. It’s an interesting world we live in.

  11. Matthias Roggenbuck 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 01:59 PM

    9- “Human contribution to CO2 is a very small percentage of the total; most, along with Methane and water vapor, comes from natural sources. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 3% at most of all CO2 generated is from human activity. So you have a small percentage of a minor player in the GG gas arena. And the “greenhouse effect”from the sun’s energy as a contributor to earth temperature is not understood. At best it is just one component to be input to a computer model, that’s it. (All this info is from NASA, btw).”

    WOW, Robert!!! You quote the NASA and not the Book of Revelation… I’m impressed! So let’s do sth. equally objective (as we know the NASA is impeccable- just ask the orphans and widows of the Challenger crew!) and put huge corks onto vulcanos, prohibit farting and realize [the Simpsons'] Mr.Burns plan to cover that nasty sun!!! :mrgreen:

    Besides, wasn’t it your GW (the president) who wants to reduce the gas consumption within the next ten years by 20 percent?
    So what is he?
    A Politician who wants to jump on the bandwagon for political promotion and self-interest or a Weak-minded individual, trendoid, who has no capacity to think for himself, no fundamental common sense, and just goes with the flow du jour of his peers…? :mrgreen:

  12. PCD 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 03:06 PM

    Mattias, thanks for demonstrating you are an insensitive idiot.

    Again, I ask the bottom line question, who gets to live, who has to die and how, how do the surviviors get to live?

    Watch “Soylent Green” and answer me.

  13. Matthias Roggenbuck 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 05:54 PM

    12-
    Primitive Cretinic Dumbass, thank you for demonstrating that you are too stupid to spell my name- even if it is written on the screen in front of you…

    …and I have no idea, what you are talking about. Watch the Teletubbies and answer me. :cool:

  14. Robert 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 06:22 PM

    Here is a summary of the position taken by the Global Warming zealots who have posted on this site:

    1. Any scientists that agree are the best, most eminent in their fields, and are pure as the driven snow. They work only for the sake of science. Any that do not agree are not qualified, or are working for the oil companies.
    2. Any information source that agrees is absolutely Gospel truth. Any that disagrees is unsound and unscientific.
    3. Al Gore is the Messiah and Savior. He is to be worshipped.
    4. The science is all in, thousands of scientists agree. Those who do not agree are to be ignored; effectively they do not exist.
    5. The Bush admin is pressuring scientists to disagree; there is no pressure occurring on the pro-GW side, even though, for example, the weather channel is purging all meteorologists who do not have the religion. There is no vested interests by pro-GW advocates; they are honest, pure and can only tell the truth. They are incapable of misrepresenting; doesn’t happen.
    6. The 3% of CO2 emitted by human activity is so powerful, so insidious, so significant it dwarfs any GG effect of the other 97% that is emitted by natural means.
    7. The GG effects of water vapor, which is thousands of times more significant than CO2, does not matter and is to be ignored.

    These are the first 7 tenets of the Church of Global Warming dogma.

  15. Drake 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 06:31 PM

    Speaking of the church of global warming, I saw this on another site:

    Anyone else see the similarities between the global warming scare mongering and, say, evangelical proclamations of an impending judgment day/end of the world/rapture? Or any of the hundreds of previously predicted doomsday scenarios?

    -The end is always near, but not in the predictor’s own lifetime.
    -There is little or nothing you can do to stop it.
    -But, if you act now, (ratify Kyoto/become born again) you can save your soul.
    -And with your donation, we can help spread the word.

  16. Eben 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 06:38 PM

    #13?

    Matthias.

    Remember you’re dealing with Americans who think that Venice and Paris are in Las Vegas.:roll:

    It’s pretty freaking scary I assure you!

  17. Peejz 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 07:27 PM

    16- Oh did you just realize they weren’t?

  18. Peejz 2/2/2007 at February 2, 2007 - 07:29 PM

    15- Great link Drake and very true.

  19. Drake 2/3/2007 at February 3, 2007 - 07:43 AM

    What the whole debate really comes down to is are you willing to throw TRILLIONS of dollars at a problem we can’t do anything about? TRILLIONS of dollars to be spent with an admission by it’s supproters that it won’t stop, or really even slow down global warming. Any rational person should be able to see it really doesn’t make sense.

  20. Drake 2/3/2007 at February 3, 2007 - 07:59 AM

    It always strikes me as funny when people try to paint their opponent in an argument as inferior by using suppositions, as eben did above. Do you not realize that baseless assumptions have the reverse effect to make you look stupid instead?

  21. Peejz 2/3/2007 at February 3, 2007 - 08:24 AM

    Drake, here is a good link that sums up what I think you are saying:

    The iron law of contemporary environmental understanding in the United States is: Bad News Good, Good News Bad. Though by almost every measure the Western environment at least has been getting better for decades, voters, thinkers, and pundits have been programmed to believe the environment is getting worse. Thus conditioned, Americans greet environmental bad news with a welcoming sigh as confirming the expected, while regarding environmental good news as some kind of deception. Bad News Good, Good News Bad.
    During the 2000 presidential campaign, for example, much was made of Houston becoming the “smog capital of America.” But Houston’s overall air quality was improving at the time. Houston became the nation’s smog capital only because Los Angeles’s air improved even faster, passing Houston in a race of positives. Perhaps the commentators who spoke as though Houston’s air were getting worse did not understand the issue. More likely they did not want to understand-for cleaner air would violate the rule of Good News Bad.
    Environmental lobbyists intent on raising money have a stake in spinning everything in alarming terms. (Everyone is aware that corporate lobbyists have financial stakes in the positions they advocate. Why the same isn’t understood about environmental lobbyists numbers among the small mysteries of our moment.) And when environmental lobbyists depict all news as bad, most of the media reflexively echoes this line.

    your view

    After reading this opinion, tell us what you think. We’ll post the most interesting comments.

    send YOUR VIEW

    Arguably the greatest postwar achievement of the U.S. government and of the policy community is ever-cleaner air and water, accomplished amidst population and economic growth. The environmental record to date shows that government programs can make the nation better and safer without harming prosperity, that industry can be regulated in ways that benefit everyone, that public policy can work. Past environmental successes give reason to hope that future initiatives, such as greenhouse gas controls, will succeed too.
    Yet the false perception of environmental decline”a package of views I call “instant doomsday”"is promoted assiduously by the very environmental activists and political liberals who would likely receive much of the credit for these accomplishments were they properly recognized. To boot, voters would be shown a reason to believe that government really can accomplish things. Wouldn’t that be welcome all around? Ah, but it would violate the law of Bad News Good, Good News Bad.
    Cleaner Air
    Most”not all”environmental indicators are now positive, at least in the United States and other Western nations.
    Air pollution has declined at a pace that would be a national cause for celebration, were it not for Good News Bad thinking. (Most of the following statistics are for 1976-97. Subsequent data, due from the Environmental Protection Agency soon, are expected to show more decline in all categories.) Since 1976, the aggregate U.S. level of urban ozone, the main component of smog, has declined 31 percent. Airborne levels of sulfur dioxide, the main component of acid rain, have dropped 67 percent. Nitrogen oxide, the secondary cause of urban smog and of acid rain, has fallen 38 percent. Fine soot (“particulates”), which causes respiratory disease, has declined 26 percent. Airborne lead, considered the most dangerous air pollutant when the EPA was founded in 1970, has declined 97 percent. The EPA’s “Pollutant Standards Index,” which measures days when air quality is unhealthful, has fallen 66 percent since 1988 in major cities.
    As analyst Steven Haywood of the Pacific Research Institute has pointed out, during 1976-97, while the United States was cleaning up its air, its population rose more than 25 percent, its gross domestic product more than doubled, and its vehicle-miles traveled grew about 125 percent”all developments that might have been expected to worsen air pollution. What kept that from happening was a web of ever-stricter anti-emission regulations, ever-better technology (today’s new cars emit less than 1 percent as much pollution, per mile traveled, as 1970 cars), and smart use of market forces. For example, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments allowed electric-power utilities to trade acid-rain permits to help them meet tougher standards. As a result, acid-rain emissions fell 50 percent during the 1990s, even as more coal, the primary source of acid-rain chemicals, was being burned.
    Especially spectacular has been the improvement of Los Angeles air. The summer of 2001 was its cleanest on record. Los Angeles county has not had a “stage one” ozone alert in two years; during the 1980s, it averaged 70 stage-one warnings annually. In 2001, Los Angeles violated the federal ozone standard 36 times; during the 1980s, it averaged 165 violations a year. L.A. county officials had to issue 18 ozone “health advisories” in 2001; during the 1980s, the average was 130 a year. (And L.A. smog figures for the 1960s and 1970s were worse.) Despite the popular impression of L.A. air getting ever worse, Los Angeles smog has been declining on a pretty much linear basis since the 1960s.
    Denver, New York City, and other major urban areas have drastically reduced the incidence of carbon monoxide”sometimes called winter smog”in the past decade amidst a welter of claims by environmental activists that “more and more cities are violating air standards.” As the EPA makes its air quality standards progressively more stringent, cities may violate standards even as pollution levels go down.
    Related Progress
    Most other environmental indicators are similarly favorable. In 1970, only one-third of American lakes and rivers were safe for fishing and swimming”the principal water-purity standard of the Clean Water Act. Today the proportion is about two-thirds, and rising. Toxic emissions from U.S. industry have declined 42 percent since 1988 and not because production fled offshore”domestic output of the petrochemical industry, the main source of toxic emissions, grew during the period. During the past two decades municipal wastewater treatment has become universal, while the ocean dumping of sewage sludge has been banned. Boston Harbor, a decades-old source of dirty-water jokes, is on such a clean binge”thanks to the world’s most advanced municipal wastewater treatment plant”that the harbor is sparkling again already and will be safe to fish and swim in soon. Land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes has been banned, and no Superfund sites today imperil public health. Energy consumption has become more efficient in almost every category with the annoying exception of the sport utility vehicle. A long-term trend of “decarbonization” characterizes energy use in the United States, the European Union, and affluent Asian nations. All these societies are burning steadily less fossil fuel per unit of energy produced.
    Other improvements abound. The forested portion of the United States is increasing, not shrinking. Appalachian forests, once expected to be wiped out by acid rain, are the healthiest they have been since before the industry era, with browsing species such as deer thriving. Farm erosion and runoff are both trending down, even as agricultural production keeps rising. The American bald eagle, gray whale, and peregrine falcon have been “delisted” from the Endangered Species Act, while the oft-predicted wave of extinctions of U.S. plants and animals has yet to materialize. All these gains have coincided with unprecedented economic growth and improved living standards”proof that environmental protection and prosperity are wholly compatible. Gross pollution was necessary for economic growth a century ago; now it is not, though power plants continue to hum and factories to churn out goods.
    Lingering Problem Areas
    Two environmental trends in the West remain worrisome”habitat loss and greenhouse gas emissions.
    Prosperity expands to fill the space available for construction. Though the built-up area of the United States is still much smaller than most people would guess”about 6 percent of U.S. land”the developed “footprint” of the country continues to expand and must expand another 50 percent or so to accommodate the 50 percent population increase that the Census Bureau projects before the American populace stabilizes around mid-century. This means more sprawl. Before you say, “I don’t like sprawl,” remember that sprawl is caused by population growth and affluence”and which of these, precisely, do you propose to ban? More development will inevitably put pressure on wild habitats. The scattershot approach of creating national parks now and then ought to be replaced with more methodical land protection. Modest proposal: legislation requiring that for every new acre developed, another be purchased and placed into preservation status. (Costs of this idea would not be onerous, as wild acres sell for far less than development-grade land.)
    And the scientific case for artificial global warming continues to strengthen. Though the nightmare scenarios beloved by alarmists still seem improbable, the world has warmed slightly”9 of the 10 warmest years of the past century in the past 11 years”and there is scientific near-consensus that warming is likely to continue. The warming so far has caused no harm, but further warming might disrupt the agriculture on which the world depends or spread equatorial diseases to higher latitudes. This makes it common sense for nations to buy insurance by slowing the accumulation of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Most of the ways to slow carbon buildup involve improving energy efficiency and developing nonfossil power”both reforms that are needed regardless of what happens to the climate.
    Today affordable progress against global warming seems inconceivable; but a generation ago, commentators called the Los Angeles smog problem unsolvable. Today no one has a financial incentive to find ways to reduce greenhouse emissions. Create a market incentive, and engineers and business whizzes would likely be brimming with ideas. Financial incentives might happen under the beleaguered Kyoto treaty. If not, the United States could move on its own by creating a system of “carbon trading,” similar to the acid-rain trading system that was both effective and affordable.
    Developing Countries
    The favorable environmental trends in the West do not extend to the developing world. Increasingly the United States and the European Union approach pristine, while the impoverished parts of the world grow more polluted.
    Gross air pollution from unregulated industry, from cars and trucks without Western tailpipe controls, from dirty gasoline and diesel fuels, and worst of all from indoor smoke”more than a billion people worldwide heat and cook with indoor fires”make air pollution in Lagos, Delhi, and many other developing-world cities worse than anything in the West since London in the 1950s. For a third of the world’s population, safe drinking water is a rarity”or an expensive luxury. In Indonesia, for example, the poor spend a significant fraction of their income to buy a few liters of safe water from vendors; here, we pay pennies per thousand gallons. Wastewater treatment is often unknown: I’ve seen boys in Pakistan swimming in open sewage canals that run down city boulevards. All told, the number of children under the age of five who die each year in the developing world from gross air pollution and unsafe drinking water”two causes of death essentially eliminated in the West”is larger than the number of deaths at all ages from all causes each year in the United States and the European Union combined.
    One reason Americans and Europeans need to shed the instant-doomsday misperception of their own environment is so that they can turn their attention to the genuine environmental troubles of the developing world. Americans and Europeans won’t support environmental aid to the developing world if they falsely believe their own air and water imperiled. But both citizenries are generous and might back international environmental initiatives if they understood, first, that their own environments are being protected and, second, the degree of human suffering caused by ecological problems in the impoverished world.
    Western environmental lobbyists tend to downplay developing-world issues, both for fundraising reasons”people scared about their backyards are more likely to donate”and because what’s needed by the poor who heat with indoor fires is clean electricity, while what’s needed by the poor who buy water by the liter is central reservoir and purification systems. Western environmentalists who would never dream of going without unlimited electricity and clean water condemn such big infrastructure systems as “inappropriate” for the developing world, fulminating about the evils of power generation and dams. Few views are more detached from the reality of human needs.
    General ecological need, in turn, is reflected by the threat of species loss in the developing world. For it is not the industrialized West but the developing world”where deforestation continues”that may lose species in the 21st century. And unlike pollution, which can be reversed, species loss is forever.
    The International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the most credible organization in this field, lists 180 “critically endangered” mammal species and 182 bird species”more than enough to justify emergency efforts for species conservation. But most work must be done in the developing world, not the West.
    What’s Ahead?
    Is more environmental progress practical? Absolutely.
    In the United States and European Union, most environmental regulations may be characterized as effective but cumbersome”too complex and not sensitive enough to market forces. Replacing complex rules (the Clean Air Act imposes dozens of separate standards on industrial facilities) with simplified performance goals might speed the rate of pollution reduction. Environmentalists and editorialists have been conditioned to denounce any streamlining of EPA rules as a “rollback,” but what’s the goal”rules or pollution reduction? Many areas of environmental law offer opportunities to use streamlining and market forces to allow more progress at lower cost.
    Environmental law could also benefit from greater use of risk analysis and trade-off thinking. Millions of dollars may be spent to, say, eliminate the last part per quadrillion of dioxin from the emissions of papermaking plants, even though there is no evidence such minute amounts cause harm, and there are many better ways the millions could be spent. EPA Administrator Christine Whitman just imposed a $500 million Hudson River-PCB dredging cleanup on General Electric, which caused the river’s PCB problems. She took the step although the harm from Hudson River PCBs is comparatively small and declining naturally anyway, and despite the fact there is no guarantee a fleet-sized dredging project will even work”it might make the situation worse by stirring up buried PCBs. Posit that General Electric was guilty of behavior for which $500 million is the proper penalty. The money could be far better spent buying land for preservation, housing the homeless, or perhaps protecting the watershed that provides New York City’s water supply. But the Clean Water Act as written does not allow such utilitarian trade-offs. Many highly prescriptive environmental laws could sensibly be supplanted by a few simplified statutes that grant regulators discretion to pursue the general good.
    For the developing world, bad as conditions are, there is reason to hope. Air pollution in Mexico City, one of the world’s most polluted urban areas, has declined for each of the past two years, mainly because Pemex, the Mexican petroleum concern, has begun reformulating gasoline to reduce its inherent pollutant content. Mexico City has a long, long way to go to clear its air. But just a few years ago the city’s situation was commonly described as desperate; now there is guarded optimism. Developments of that sort might be seen as something to celebrate, if it weren’t for Bad News Good, Good News Bad.

     

  22. Matthias Roggenbuck 2/4/2007 at February 4, 2007 - 04:06 AM

    19 -“What the whole debate really comes down to is are you willing to throw TRILLIONS of dollars at a problem we can’t do anything about? TRILLIONS of dollars to be spent with an admission by it’s supproters that it won’t stop, or really even slow down global warming. Any rational person should be able to see it really doesn’t make sense.”

    Yesterday I read that your president is about/tries to get a defense budget of $145 billion for Iraq/Afghanistan for the next two years- so wasting money [if it was] shouldn’t really hurt the American taxpayer.. :mrgreen:

  23. Drake 2/4/2007 at February 4, 2007 - 07:59 AM

    22-Do you know the difference between trillions and billions? I guess you’re back to the shifting sands argument. You only believe in cutting the federal deficit when it suits your argument or you think it makes republcians look bad. If it’s increased for something you believe in like fighting “the unstoppable” global warming, then deficit be damned. Fiscal responsibility my ass. It’s just more hypocrisy from the left as usual. When pelosi talks about fiscal responsibility she means cutting spending on things republicans want so she can have even more spent on her pet projects. Also, for your information, I’m not a big fan of bush. He’s probably been the most liberal republican of all time. Anyhow, I’m sure as hell not interested in throwing trillions of dollars at a problem it’s biggest supporters claim is “unstoppable” and “we can’t do anything about it”. Especially when it’s based on reports that cnn says: ”

    “written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and
    edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries    ”

    If that many bureaucrats were allowed to “edit” it I doubt there is much real science left.

  24. Peejz 2/4/2007 at February 4, 2007 - 09:18 AM

    If that many bureaucrats were allowed to “edit”it I doubt there is much real science left.

    Amen:lol::lol:

  25. Matthias Roggenbuck 2/4/2007 at February 4, 2007 - 01:55 PM

    23,24 -
    And I guess Rightwing Americans and true believers of a Oil-Lobbyist President are a more objective and more reliable source than all scientists of this planet together.. :twisted:

    Besides: Where do the various wheather related disasters of the last years come from? Are you folloing the “we are facing a warmth period after a [unrealized] ice age” theory or rather the bible belt explanation?

  26. Robert 2/4/2007 at February 4, 2007 - 03:25 PM

    “than all scientists of this planet together.. :twisted: ”

    This may be the most idiotic statement ever made on this board… “all the scientists of this planet together”? Good grief…

    “Besides: Where do the various wheather related disasters of the last years come from?”

    Yeah…like the terrible, ferocious hurricane season last year in Florida? :lol: Yet another Church of Global Warming prognostication that fizzled… :lol:

  27. Robert 2/4/2007 at February 4, 2007 - 03:28 PM

    I nominate Al Gore, divinity school dropout, for Global Village Idiot. He is a Pied Piper, a true leader, gathering idiots everywhere to follow him lemming-like over the Global Warming EcoSocialism cliff. He deserves to be recognized with all the respect due such a leader: Global Village Idiot!

  28. AKD 2/4/2007 at February 4, 2007 - 05:30 PM

    27. Gore being nominated for the Nobel Prize is exactly the sort of thing that could propel this country into another civil war, right Robert? :lol:

  30. Robert 2/4/2007 at February 4, 2007 - 09:19 PM

    “27. Gore being nominated for the Nobel Prize is exactly the sort of thing that could propel this country into another civil war, right Robert?”

    That’s unfortunate you feel that way. Do you mean you, and other zealots of the Church of Global Warming, would start a civil war to elevate your Savior and Messiah, Al Gore, to the head of a new environmental theocracy?

    Scary stuff there, AKD. Perhaps your meds need to be adjusted.

  31. PCD 2/5/2007 at February 5, 2007 - 05:48 AM

    Israeli Scientist uses science to refute Global Warming and the Greenhouse Gas THEORY

    AKD, your next pontification from the UN Book of Rape the US for fun and profit?

  32. AKD 2/5/2007 at February 5, 2007 - 06:20 AM

    Bush said the debate is over. Why don’t you support the president in these troubled times? :lol:

    Seriously, I expect people to pop up to debate the IPCC findings, but they’re still in an incredible minority when compared to the scientific consensus.

    I’m sure that you can find a handful of scientists who believe in ID, too.

  33. Matthias Roggenbuck 2/5/2007 at February 5, 2007 - 06:48 AM

    26 -“than all scientists of this planet together.. ”

    This may be the most idiotic statement ever made on this board: “all the scientists of this planet together”? Good grief:”

    Sorry, that I didn’t translate it into your language.. “scientists”=heretics

    27- “I nominate Al Gore, divinity school dropout, for Global Village Idiot. He is a Pied Piper, a true leader, gathering idiots everywhere to follow him lemming-like over the Global Warming EcoSocialism cliff.”

    Wow- so that would have made him an excellent successor to Bush… you know, with this pied piper thing… crusade against terror… the 3.000 dead GIs and the dumped billions etc.-thing…
    Actually, you should rename your wonderful country into “United States of Lemmings”… no… that would sound too much like a sports league… :cool:

  34. Drake 2/5/2007 at February 5, 2007 - 07:30 AM

    25-Interesting argument, I actually have a strong science background, can yo usay the same? I obviously don’t agree with your “consensus”, and I guarantee if I took a poll at my place of business I would find no consensus among the scientists and engineers. I know this because I’ve discussed this in the past with a lot of them. So now you switch tactics to try to say the “majority” feels that way, switching to a transparent attempt at peer pressure arguments now. You sir are not my peer. The idea that you should think a certain way because “everyone” else does is laughable. Only a fool follows others without thinking. Another reason why you should be furious at the democrats for the laughable idea that the president “fooled” them into voting for the war. Ignoring that they claim an “idiot” fooled them so completely (what does that make them?), but that they admit to not doing due diligence and blindly accepting the word of someone else without thought or question on such an important issue is pure incompetence! Anyway to follow your argument, “everyone” is going to go jump off a bridge, if you hurry you can still join them.

    32-do you have any kind of scientific background? I’m guessing not, a “consensus” is a political statement not real science. Real science thrives on debate no matter what the “majority” opinion believes. That’s how real science progresses.

  35. Peejz 2/5/2007 at February 5, 2007 - 08:24 AM

    34-Real science thrives on debate no matter what the “majority”opinion believes. That’s how real science progresses. Thanks for being the voice of reason.

  36. PCD 2/5/2007 at February 5, 2007 - 08:32 AM

    32 & 33, You two remind me of the Ape tribunal in the original “Planet of the Apes”. AKD, are you really Dr. Zaus?

    The GW acolytes are just like the Catholic Church Vs. Galileo on whether the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

    Again, people, don’t try to confuse AKD with science or facts. Bring up inconvient facts, he plugs his ears and screams about consensus.

  37. Matthias Roggenbuck 2/5/2007 at February 5, 2007 - 09:16 AM

    36-
    So talking about “Galileo vs. Church”, I’m really interested whom the Anti-Global Warming believers associate them with?

    Besides belonging to an ape tribunal on a planet ruled by apes while the humans are the backwards developed inferior species AND taking into account what freak kind of Charlton Heston has become meanwhile, I would definitely say: being an ape is not the worst choice! (Not to mention the fact that mankind has destroyed its own world in that movie. What an excellent comparison, PCD!) :mrgreen:

  38. PCD 2/5/2007 at February 5, 2007 - 10:13 AM

    Mattias, so you admit to being a closed minded bigot and would be censor of the truth.