[Nicko]

Gore nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

OSLO, Norway, Feb. 2 (UPI) -- This could be a big year for Al Gore, with the former U.S. vice president and presidential candidate nominated for an Oscar and, now, a Nobel Peace Prize.

Two members of the Norwegian Parliament have nominated Gore and Sheila Watt-Cloustier, an Inuit and Canadian environmentalist, suggesting that the two share the prize, Aftenposten reported. Borge Brende and Heidi Sorensen say Gore and Watt-Cloustier should be honored for their efforts to get global warming on the global radar screen.

"The Nobel Committee has previously been adept at addressing new threats with their awards," said Brende, a former environment minister. "Climate change is one of the greatest and most serious threats humanity faces. The United Nations' climate panel now maintains that Earth may be changed more in the next 100 years than in the 10,000 years since the last ice age."

Gore has been traveling the world in recent months with his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." The film was nominated for an Oscar for best documentary.

Watt-Cloutier is a longtime leader of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which includes native peoples from around the Arctic.

The Peace Prize laureate is selected by a Norwegian committee, while other prizes are awarded in Sweden.

Copyright 2007 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

---

Can you think of a better candidate? I certainly can't!

An Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize in the same year, thats gota break a few records.

[Millennium]

Just because a cult is based around a scientific principle instead of a religion doesn't make it any less of a cult. I mean, come on; now fighting global warming leads to world peace?

[BRussell]

Hmm, as much as I like what Gore has done on that, I don't really see how it's about peace.

Besides, anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Wasn't Bush nominated by some nutcase for one because he started the Iraq war?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Hmm, as much as I like what Gore has done on that, I don't really see how it's about peace.

Besides, anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Wasn't Bush nominated by some nutcase for one because he started the Iraq war?

Looks that way.

Harald T. Nesvik, a Right-wing Norwegian Member of Parliament, has nominated U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize for their "decisive action against terrorism"

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Just because a cult is based around a scientific principle instead of a religion doesn't make it any less of a cult. I mean, come on; now fighting global warming leads to world peace?

I agree it doesn't have anything to do with world peace - but a "cult?" Come on. Who is in this cult? And what other beliefs are cults - are people who believe terrorism is a threat to the world that should be addressed a cult? What about those who fought communism - cult? The US and the world came to see how CFCs were screwing up our atmosphere, and we banned them. So are the anti-CFC people in a cult?

I mean, I believe the neoconservatives who thought it would be great to invade Iraq and reshape the world were wrong, but I wouldn't call them a cult.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Just because a cult is based around a scientific principle instead of a religion doesn't make it any less of a cult. I mean, come on; now fighting global warming leads to world peace?

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Just because a cult is based around a scientific principle instead of a religion doesn't make it any less of a cult. I mean, come on; now fighting global warming leads to world peace?

Whats all this about a cult eh?

Fighting global warming certainly will lead to world peace, or atleast a more peaceful world. In Kenya for example people routinely kill each other for access to food, water, and land. Infact, for many access to fertile land IS the only issue they care about. Last year saw the worst drought in a decade, while in the last few months there have been unusually high amounts of rain that has flooded farmland, ruined crops, and left over 100,000 homeless.

BRussell: Maybe not a cult...how about a sleeper cell?

[smacintush]

Good for Al.

Now he's THAT much closer to his idols Gorby and Carter.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Fighting global warming certainly will lead to world peace, or atleast a more peaceful world.

That's hilarious. Are you on crack? Oh…no, you are simply buying into the doomsday bullshit™ surrounding the GW issue.

[Macrobat]

Just to throw a fly in the ointment, Rush Limbaugh was also nominated for the same prize! lol


Global Warming is a religion. There is "concensus" among several scientists (there is also dissent), but no proof of man-made global warming.

We are talking about people here who cannot get a 5 day weather forecast correct, yet expect us to believe they can predict what will happen in 10 years.

In order for GW to qualify as actual science, it must meet four standards. It has - to date - only met three.

. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


Warming has been observed, a hypothesis as to its cause has been formulated, predictions have been made based on the hypothesis, BUT no experiments have PROVEN it's a fact. (Hence the "concensus" No "concensus" is needed for, say, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, because - when challenged - he proved it)

Therefore, it is simply accepted as a matter of faith, by a "concensus" of scientists.

It has all the trappings of a religion:

A "god" - the environment
A "sin" - the way humanity has treated the environment
An "apocalypse" - self-explanatory

[smacintush]

Surely you must be joking! I mean, Anthropomorphic Climate Change is as settled as the sun rising. It's a certainty. The debate is over, we have about TEN YEARS LEFT! MY GOD DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT HUMANITY??!! IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING WE'RE ALL DEAD!

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Surely you must be joking! I mean, Anthropomorphic Climate Change is as settled as the sun rising. It's a certainty. The debate is over, we have about TEN YEARS LEFT! MY GOD DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT HUMANITY??!! IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING WE'RE ALL DEAD!

Since when are we anthorpomorphizing climate change? I suppose the little global warming reel from Futurama that Gore used in his movie does to some extent...

[Macrobat]

Um, it pegged my sarcasmatron, is yours non-functioning?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Global Warming is a religion. There is "concensus" among several scientists (there is also dissent), but no proof of man-made global warming.

Humans Blamed For Climate Change

You're, ohhh, a few hours late on that one. 90-99% certainty, they say, with a range of 1.1 - 6.4 degrees Celsius by 2090-2099.

That's okay though, I think you're used to being wrong on this topic.

We are talking about people here who cannot get a 5 day weather forecast correct, yet expect us to believe they can predict what will happen in 10 years.

More ignorance. You've just invalidated all sports betting odds ever created. That's the rough equivalent of saying long-term trends can't be predicted accurately if individual events can't be predicted accurately. Do you not have any grasp of statistics, my man? You know, the more events you have, the closer you'll be to the "norm"?

Jebus. Think much?

greg

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Um, it pegged my sarcasmatron, is yours non-functioning?

I think he just meant to type "anthropogenic" and accidentally typed "anthropomorphic."

But yeah, science is liberal propaganda, everything is relative, an internet opinion is just as valid as systematic research, etc. Postmodernism all the way dude.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

But yeah, science is gospel, everything is subjective, an internet opinion is automatically invalid because intelligent people don't use the internet.

Better?

[BRussell]

Well it's not "there are empirical truths, the scientific method is our best bet for seeking them, and opinions based on science are better than opinions based on feelings," but if that's the best I can get, I'll take it.

[Macrobat]

Sorry, "Shortie," but no one is wrong except your pontification.

"Concensus" is NOT fact, it is NOT science, and it does NOT constitute an absolute.

Must suck to be so arrogantly condescending while standing in quicksand, huh?

You try to come across like you know it all, yet experts in the field cannot even agree.

Gee, a global prediction of a rise of *GASP* 2 degrees farhenheit in 50 years. Oh yes - we're friggin DOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!

Jebus, asshole much?

[Face Ache]

US plays down role in climate change
February 3, 2007 - 3:04PM

The Bush administration has played down the US contribution to world climate change and called for a "global discussion" after a UN report blamed humans for much of the warming over the past 50 years.

"We are a small contributor when you look at the rest of the world," US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said of greenhouse gas emissions. "It's really got to be a global discussion."

The United States is responsible for one-quarter of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide and uses one-quarter of the world's crude oil.

I mean...

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Sorry, "Shortie," but no one is wrong except your pontification.

"Concensus" is NOT fact, it is NOT science, and it does NOT constitute an absolute.

Must suck to be so arrogantly condescending while standing in quicksand, huh?

You try to come across like you know it all, yet experts in the field cannot even agree.

Gee, a global prediction of a rise of *GASP* 2 degrees farhenheit in 50 years. Oh yes - we're friggin DOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!

Jebus, asshole much?

And what was the reception to this paper? Standing ovation?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Global Warming is a religion. There is "concensus" among several scientists (there is also dissent), but no proof of man-made global warming.

We are talking about people here who cannot get a 5 day weather forecast correct, yet expect us to believe they can predict what will happen in 10 years.

if global warming is a religion (based on science) that you seem to not believe in, then what standard of proof is there for all religions ?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Sorry, "Shortie," but no one is wrong except your pontification.

"Concensus" is NOT fact, it is NOT science, and it does NOT constitute an absolute.

Must suck to be so arrogantly condescending while standing in quicksand, huh?

You try to come across like you know it all, yet experts in the field cannot even agree.

Gee, a global prediction of a rise of *GASP* 2 degrees farhenheit in 50 years. Oh yes - we're friggin DOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!

Jebus, asshole much?

Sooooooooooooooooooo........

....you gonna admit you're wrong yet?

*whistles, checks watch*

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

if global warming is a religion (based on science) that you seem to not believe in, then what standard of proof is there for all religions ?

Standard of proof? Standard of proof? It's faith baby, faith! We don't need no stinkin' proof!



greg

[Nicko]

Just to get this thread back on track, Gore for President of the world!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Well it's not "there are empirical truths, the scientific method is our best bet for seeking them, and opinions based on science are better than opinions based on feelings," but if that's the best I can get, I'll take it.

You should know better.

It's a nice fantasy to think that we can make decisions free of the influence of our feelings but that's quite impossible. All thoughts and decisions involve our feelings and all feelings involve our thoughts.

Besides that, it's been scientifically verified that using our "gut feelings" and our instincts is more effective than using our conscious thought processes to make complicated decisions. So those "feelings" you are ignoring aren't just feelings. They are the manifestation of your deepest unconscious calculations.

Sheesh, following their hearts is one of the FEW things that liberals usually get right, maybe that's why you aren't a very good one…

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

You try to come across like you know it all, yet experts in the field cannot even agree.

College kids DO know all…didn't you get the memo?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Standard of proof? Standard of proof? It's faith baby, faith! We don't need no stinkin' proof!



greg

I think you need to look up the definition of faith. It's EXACTLY what you have in this whole Climate doomsday garbage.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Sooooooooooooooooooo........

....you gonna admit you're wrong yet?

*whistles, checks watch*

greg

Keep staring at it, because I'm not - your faith is showing.

[Macrobat]

All your link constitutes is a rehash of the environmentalist Bible verses you keep repeating. Whoopee.

I guess you figure if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again, it somehow constitutes proof.

Welcome to religion.

[Macrobat]

Here's your first clue that it's faith-based.

Just as Christians (or any other religious) cannot seem to convince (convert?) anyone who disbelieves because there is no overwhelming, utterly convinclg proof (which you reinforce with your previous proofs), you find yourself utterly unable to convert anyone to YOUR faith with your "facts," either.

Now, pass your collection plate, say your offeratory, and get about your lives.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Is that why the Conservative leaders of North America, President Bush and Prime Minister Harper, have recently backflipped after years of pointing out holes in the science? Now there is climate change – although they continue to downplay what to do or their countries' involvement, of course.

The real problem with climate change science? It's so complicated it bypasses the ignorant, or those who don't wish to learn about it. It's not only almost impossible to know everything about the topic – it extensively covers biology, chemistry, physics, yadda yadda - but the majority of the knowledge is specialized enough that its quite boring to read unless you have some beforehand knowledge on the subject.

So, what you get are people like you two. You don't know anything about the subject. You have no wish to learn. You would rather take brief synopses from your local right-wing pundit who also knows nothing about the subject rather than actually read a scientific paper or the new IPCC Third Assessment Report. Nope, instead you'd like to spend your time posting on teh intarweb how it's all a "religion" and how "Besides that, it's been scientifically verified that using our "gut feelings" and our instincts is more effective than using our conscious thought processes to make complicated decisions." JEBUS! I knew I should've written "42" for that last question on my calculus exam! I just knew it! GUT FEELING!

Both of you are pretty sad in these threads. It's just the same tired old arguments, over and over, as the world passes you by.

And...I'm not in college any more. Although hopefully I will be again in a few month. But for the meantime, I'm out in the real world, where "gut feelings" will carry me safely through all complicated decisions I face.


greg

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And...I'm not in college any more. Although hopefully I will be again in a few month. But for the meantime, I'm out in the real world, where "gut feelings" will carry me safely through all complicated decisions I face.


greg

Don’t let them get you down. They are OBVIOUSLY just intimidated by the greatness of Al Gore.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Just because a cult is based around a scientific principle instead of a religion doesn't make it any less of a cult. I mean, come on; now fighting global warming leads to world peace?

Of course it does. Stable, predictable climate leads to peace. That's pretty much completely obvious.

V

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Is that why the Conservative leaders of North America, President Bush and Prime Minister Harper, have recently backflipped after years of pointing out holes in the science? Now there is climate change – although they continue to downplay what to do or their countries' involvement, of course.

They wouldn't be doing this for POLITICAL reasons now WOULD THEY? No, of course not. Are you really THAT naive?

So, what you get are people like you two. You don't know anything about the subject. You have no wish to learn. You would rather take brief synopses from your local right-wing pundit who also knows nothing about the subject rather than actually read a scientific paper or the new IPCC Third Assessment Report.

And "educated morons" like yourself continue to be in denial about the FACT the the IPCC is a biased, political group.

"Besides that, it's been scientifically verified that using our "gut feelings" and our instincts is more effective than using our conscious thought processes to make complicated decisions." JEBUS! I knew I should've written "42" for that last question on my calculus exam! I just knew it! GUT FEELING!

Just because you don't care to understand it doesn't mean it's not true. The unconscious brain calculates large amounts of data that your conscious brain just can't. I figured you might know something about this, I mean, I thought you went to SCHOOL.

ScienceDaily: Trusting Your Instincts Leads You To The Right Answer

(of course, you won't like my link. It's probably a right-wing sight anyway… )

Both of you are pretty sad in these threads. It's just the same tired old arguments, over and over, as the world passes you by.

Ooooohh, the drama.

And...I'm not in college any more. Although hopefully I will be again in a few month. But for the meantime, I'm out in the real world, where "gut feelings" will carry me safely through all complicated decisions I face.

I'm afraid you don't live in the real world yet. Call me when your testicles finish descending.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Of course it does. Stable, predictable climate leads to peace. That's pretty much completely obvious.

V

…and there's another fantasy…

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

They wouldn't be doing this for POLITICAL reasons now WOULD THEY? No, of course not. Are you really THAT naive?

Of course they are. Because they can no longer continue to deny the obvious. They don't want to look as stupid as you do.

And "educated morons" like yourself continue to be in denial about the FACT the the IPCC is a biased, political group.

Ahhh yes, back to the old "the IPCC has hired 2000 scientists and a hundred governments that are all liberal left-wing biased" argument. So very effective, I'm sure.

Just because you don't care to understand it doesn't mean it's not true. The unconscious brain calculates large amounts of data that your conscious brain just can't. I figured you might know something about this, I mean, I thought you went to SCHOOL.

Yeah, and I took 5 neura psychology courses too, which makes me more educated on the topic than you are. Of course, had you bothered to read your "proof" or even think about what you were posting, you would've realized that our subconscious calculations of rotated objects doesn't in any way help us find out the answer to a calculus problem, or a microbiology question, or a cloud physics calculation. "Oh jesus, when I look at the sky my subconscious tells me global warming can't be true!" Egads! What an idiotic argument.

I'm afraid you don't live in the real world yet. Call me when your testicles finish descending.

Yeah yeah yeah, more of the same. Call me when you've actually bother to educate yourself on climate change. Or logical debate, for that matter.

greg

[Macrobat]

How about when you educate yourself on being an actual human, instead of a condescending asswipe?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Only if you educate yourself period, darlin.

greg

[ironknee]

a nobel peace prize and an oscar would be the coolest thing to happen

[Kevin]

If it happens, the award will be irrelevant.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Only if you educate yourself period, darlin.

greg

Educate yourself = Think like I do

I know highly educated people that think Gore is full of it.

The irony is, you telling people to educate themselves while you use logical fallacies.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Of course they are. Because they can no longer continue to deny the obvious. They don't want to look as stupid as you do.

Yep. Gotta look good for the sheeple.

Of course, had you bothered to read your "proof" or even think about what you were posting, you would've realized that our subconscious calculations of rotated objects doesn't in any way help us find out the answer to a calculus problem, or a microbiology question, or a cloud physics calculation.

Really, I'd get my money back on that course if I were you.

"Oh jesus, when I look at the sky my subconscious tells me global warming can't be true!" Egads! What an idiotic argument.

If you'd have bothered reading my posts you'd realize that I was never trying to make this argument. I was simply refuting BRussels retarded assertion that we shouldn't listen to our feelings.

Yeah yeah yeah, more of the same. Call me when you've actually bother to educate yourself on climate change. Or logical debate, for that matter.

Wow. I got in "infraction" for the testicle comment. Whatever. I guess I'm just supposed to put up with your arrogant, condescending, elitist remarks.

Anyway…I was thinking of studying law so I can be an expert on climate change, any suggestions on schools?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

…and there's another fantasy…

You're a layperson, you don't know jack about this subject. All you have is an opinion. And like assholes, everybody has one. However one isn't supposed to talk out of it, as you're doing.

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

You're a layperson, you don't know jack about this subject. All you have is an opinion. And like assholes, everybody has one. However one isn't supposed to talk out of it, as you're doing.

V

Logical fallacy.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Educate yourself = Think like I do

I know highly educated people that think Gore is full of it.

The irony is, you telling people to educate themselves while you use logical fallacies.

I know tons of educated people who think anthropogenic climate change is full of it, too, but none of them are educated in climate science. That makes their opinion – and your opinion, and Macrobat's opinion, and smacintush's opinion – invalid, just as my opinion on audio production equipment and paratrooping out of helicopters and the most efficient car or computer processor designs is completely invalid. I don't know jack **** about those things. The difference is, I'm not sticking my head into threads on those subjects and giving my invalid opinion, am I!?

As well, your countless little comments on logical fallacies is amusing, considering you can't ever form enough of an argument yourself to actually make a relevant comment on the subject, but it's pointless. Arguments are full of such things. This isn't a surprise. Everyone can figure out that there's something wrong with the other person's line of attack. The difference is, good debaters can actually point them out, and exploit such logical weaknesses.

You're still stuck on the first base. Maybe when you get to the next one you'll have something to contribute. I can only hope.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Wow. I got in "infraction" for the testicle comment. Whatever. I guess I'm just supposed to put up with your arrogant, condescending, elitist remarks.

Anyway…I was thinking of studying law so I can be an expert on climate change, any suggestions on schools?

That's okay, I got one for my stupid comment. I guess I'm supposed to put up with that as well.

Heyyyyyy! Come to Canada! Dalhousie University has a great Marine Law program! And Calgary has a quality Natural Resources program I hear! Go nuts.

greg

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Standard of proof? Standard of proof? It's faith baby, faith! We don't need no stinkin' proof!



greg

....

[ironknee]

but what's wrong with taking care of our planet?

what's wrong with cleaning the environment, pushing for new technologies to get us off oil and make us the world leader

i heard from one conservative who thought the sun might be getting hotter

to even think that humans don't influence the environment is dumb at best and 2000-year-old thinking at worst

[analogika]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yep. Gotta look good for the sheeple.

So denying scientific truth is a punk "**** the world" kind of rebellion for you?

Hey, we all go through phases of denying accepted standards. Maybe one day, you'll grow out of it.

Hopefully before my house is submerged by a storm flood.

[OldManMac]

Peer-reviewed scientific studies support the conclusion that global warming is real; those with an axe to grind do so for other reasons, not the least of which are personal gain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...004399,00.html

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I know tons of educated people who think anthropogenic climate change is full of it, too, but none of them are educated in climate science. That makes their opinion – and your opinion, and Macrobat's opinion, and smacintush's opinion – invalid, just as my opinion on audio production equipment and paratrooping out of helicopters and the most efficient car or computer processor designs is completely invalid. I don't know jack **** about those things. The difference is, I'm not sticking my head into threads on those subjects and giving my invalid opinion, am I!?

As well, your countless little comments on logical fallacies is amusing, considering you can't ever form enough of an argument yourself to actually make a relevant comment on the subject, but it's pointless. Arguments are full of such things. This isn't a surprise. Everyone can figure out that there's something wrong with the other person's line of attack. The difference is, good debaters can actually point them out, and exploit such logical weaknesses.

You're still stuck on the first base. Maybe when you get to the next one you'll have something to contribute. I can only hope.

greg

More ad-hominem/Logical fallacies.

You are attacking the person instead of what the person has to say.

It's a lame cop-out.