Gore Rips Media: ‘Don’t Give Equal Time To Someone Who Believes The Earth Is Flat’
Gore Rips Media: ‘Don’t Give Equal Time To Someone Who Believes The Earth Is Flat’
This morning, former vice president Al Gore appeared on NBC’s Today Show to talk about global warming. Host Meredith Vieira brought up a Nov. 1 Wall Street Journal op-ed by climate skeptic John Christy, a former member of the IPCC. In the op-ed, Christy wrote, “I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the activity we see.”
When Vieira asked about the op-ed, Gore noted that Christy “no longer belongs to the IPCC” and is “way outside the scientific consensus.” He also sharply criticized the media for giving so much air time to such climate skeptics:
But, Meredith, part of the challenge the news media has had in covering this story is the old habit of taking the on the one hand, on the other hand approach. There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat, but when you’re reporting on a story like the one you’re covering today, where you have people all around the world, you don’t take — you don’t search out for someone who still believes the Earth is flat and give them equal time.
Watch it:
The IPCC is an international body made up of thousands of scientists from 113 countries who have been studying global warming since 1988. Its February consensus assessment said that global warming is “unequivocal” and “very likely” the result of human activity.
As Gore noted, scientists such as Christy are outliers, yet the media continue to give them an overblown amount of airtime. Last month, for example, Colorado State University professor Dr. William Gray sharply criticized Gore, saying that he is “brainwashing our children” on global warming. His comments were covered by multiple major cable networks and newspapers (with no mention that he also once compared Gore to Hilter).
Additionally, Media Matters documented that the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, CNN, and Fox News all recently reported that a British judge pointed out nine “errors” in Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, without “mentioning that he also stated in the ruling that the film is ’substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.’”
UPDATE: MediaBloodhound also notes that when Gore won the Nobel Prize, The New York Times insisted on coupling the coverage with climate skeptics’ comments on its homepage.
Transcript:
VIEIRA: You know, you share the prize with scientists from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And one of those scientists, John Christy, wrote an op-ed last Thursday in the Wall Street Journal in which he criticized your dire predictions about the impact of global warming.
He wrote, I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.
So what do you make of his assessment?
GORE: Well, he’s an outlier. He no longer belongs to the IPCC, and he is way outside the scientific consensus.
But, Meredith, part of the challenge the news media has had in covering this story is the old habit of taking the on the one hand, on the other hand approach. There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat, but when you’re reporting on a story like the one you’re covering today, where you have people all around the world, you don’t take — you don’t search out for someone who still believes the Earth is flat and give them equal time.
And the reason the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the thousands of scientists who make up that group have, for almost 20 years now, created a very strong scientific consensus, that is as strong a consensus as you’ll ever see in science, that the climate crisis is real, human beings are responsible for it, the results would be very bad for the United States and for the entire world community, all human beings, unless we do something about it. And there is still time to solve it.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
AL GORE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!
November 5th, 2007 at 12:56 pm6,000 years ago, our ancestors rode dinosaurs to work. They couldn’t have done that if the earth weren’t flat.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:57 pmPeople;
We’re missing the point. The conservatives are just turning the the argument against us, and we’re following suit in their favor.
It’s not about whether or not humans are to blame.
It’s that we should do something, regardless.
We know that smog looks bad over our cities.
We know breathing in car exhaust can kill people.
We know we should be more oil-independent.
Everyone has the right to clean air, and we need to let the conservatives know that.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:01 pmExactly Al, you don’t give anyone who might disagree with you equal time, that wouldn’t be fair at all.
Comment by Beefeater — November 5, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Whatever. How many climatologists dispute global warming and the fact that humans are causing it? 5%? How much airtime does Fox give them? 50%? Sound about right?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pmBeefeater sez:
If the disagreement is not based in fact and science, no, Beefeater, it doesn’t deserve any time at all, let alone “equal time”.
This is the same bullsh!t “present both sides of the debate” we’ve seen time and again from this administration and its primary propaganda arm, FOX “news”. One might as well give airtime to a Fundie who maintains that the whole global warming issue is moot, since the Rapture is right around the corner.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pmSadly, the socialists / communists can’t refrain from Stalinist tactics of “silencing” their detractors. Moreover, the drumbeat has started to “nationalize” our energy industries, so that libs can withhold resources from anyone they designate “unworthy”, just as was done in the USSR.
Capitalism has brought forth the Tesla Motors Roadster and other auto industry electric, electric hybrids and gas hybrid vehicles. Capitalism has brought forth compact flourescent bulbs, of which Wal-Mart has exceeded their 100 million bulb yearly target 3 months early. In Germany, capitalism has backed solar power farms to be built through investment and long term contracts with municipalities.
There is no need to leap to communism / socialism to force green solutions. Capitalism can deliver solutions while stimulating the economy, provided leaders are visionary enough to provide market situations to achieve such gains.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:04 pmExactly Beefeater, the hallucinating man walking down Main Street in the little down in Ohio who thinks the Martians are collaborating with the Baptists to take over Islam in order to control the overpopulation by Mexican Catholics should have equal time on television with the U.S. Secretary of State in discussing foreign policy. That would only be fair.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pm“But, Meredith, part of the challenge the news media has had in covering this story is the old habit of taking the on the one hand, on the other hand approach.”
Boy, did that ever need saying!
For example, how they cover anti-war demonstrations. They’ll talk to a couple of the multi-tens of thousands of anti-war protesters and then turn around and give an equal amount of time to one of the five pro-war demonstrators. That does not give an accurate picture.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pmExactly Al, you don’t give anyone who might disagree with you equal time, that wouldn’t be fair at all.
Comment by Beefeater — November 5, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
As opposed to Chimpy and Co’s constant use of dissenting outside opinions and their willingness to allow them to be heard , right dummy ?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pmIt’s a place right out of history, as I recall
November 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pm“it’s your modern stone age family” they did seem to lack toilets however.
the nooz will issue a statement condemning Al Gore for flatulence to try to remind voters that NBC never didn’t say or think the earth wasn’t or not flat.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pmBeefeater seems to have left, carrying the ass that was handed to him.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pmHey, how come nobody asks Fred Flintstone’s opinion on this issue? I mean that guy’s been around for 6000 years! Talk about some freakin’ perspective. Where’s his equal time? Who’s silencing him?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmIt’s a place right out of history, as I recall
Comment by raynman — November 5, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
November 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmAnd even a ride down the street from them is protective of the enviroment ; courtesy of Fred’s 2 feet……
Beefeater: You are just as ignorant as most conservatives. Science, facts and other such little considerations just do not matter to a stupid, idiot such as you. Yes, you are nothing more than a fool. I am sick and tired of inferior intellects with small minds demanding equal time for their foolish fantasies.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmBeefeater’s all ass. That’s a load to heavy to carry.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmDoes anyone know exactly what Gore wants us to do about climate change? I never saw the movie, does it offer specific remedies?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmEqual Time??? Sheeesh, they’re getting $50 million for 5 years! (see ThinkFast).
We lost “Equal Time” yonks ago.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:17 pmDoes anyone know exactly what Gore wants us to do about climate change? I never saw the movie, does it offer specific remedies?
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Then see the movie, read the book or google it up.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:18 pmThen see the movie, read the book or google it up.
Comment by Luis M — November 5, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
That sounded a bit harsh… let me rephrase it.
I haven’t seen the movie but the book does have some advice and remedies on what you can do to reduce your contribution to global warming.
And it’s best if you read the book, so you can get the information straight from the source.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pmTo say that 95% of scientists agree is a blatent lie. Try reading some of these 228 articles (number growing by the day), rather than following this blind “the debate is over†argument.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
6% of the scientists disagree. That’s from one of the links you gave.
But then again, you’re a proven liar.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pmI haven’t seen the movie but the book does have some advice and remedies on what you can do to reduce your contribution to global warming.
Comment by Luis M — November 5, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Hm. My question was more political in the sense of, what public policy recommendations is Gore driving? Are they practical? He gets tons of meida attention, I wonder if anyone in government listens to him, like in Congress, say.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pmI’m with you Bartlebee. Why argue with these people. There should be schools that teach science and schools that teach creationism and let the parents decide which school to send their kids to. The ones who pick creationism are never going to amount to anything anyway, why waste a good education.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:28 pm6% of the scientists disagree. That’s from one of the links you gave.
But then again, you’re a proven liar.
Comment by Luis M — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Hey TC, my bad in #5. 6%, not 5%. So I guess they do deserve equal airtime after all.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:28 pm6% of the scientists disagree. That’s from one of the links you gave.
But then again, you’re a proven liar.
Comment by Luis M — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Real links show that of 99% of scientist agree. The other less than 1% work for the oil/chemical companies.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pmHm. My question was more political in the sense of, what public policy recommendations is Gore driving? Are they practical? He gets tons of meida attention, I wonder if anyone in government listens to him, like in Congress, say.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
We’re not here to do your research Keltoi. Oh is “research” a dirty word for you bible thumpers?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:30 pmDoing something is better than doing nothing, can you understand that?
1000 trees on my property thus becoming “carbon nuteral†assuring my presents on the planet for all time…….WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?
Comment by Billy Hill — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
I’m going to give everyone presents!
November 5th, 2007 at 1:31 pmComment by Billy Hill — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Was there a point somewhere in that blather?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pmI believe EVERYTHING big Al Goreilla says about global warming and would like to thank him for inventing the internets. Soon to be DR. AL Goreilla has done far more for civilization than he could ever have accomplished as President with that 9/11 thing he would have to have spent most of his time on foreign policy and that would mean we as a society would have to have sacrificed the polar bears for peace in the world. Now that we are on our way to saving the planet, the bears and the Democratic party I am going to plant a 1000 trees on my property thus becoming “carbon nuteral†assuring my presents on the planet for all time…….WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?
Comment by Billy Hill — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Nope, if Al Gore hadn’t had the presidency stolen from him he would have heeded the warnings about al Qaeda ready to attack and this whole sad episode would have probably been thwarted. That is if it isn’t just a whole Bushco conspiracy. Of course if a Bush wasn’t president it wouldn’d have gone down the way it did.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pmWe’re not here to do your research Keltoi. Oh is “research†a dirty word for you bible thumpers?
Doing something is better than doing nothing, can you understand that?
Comment by Shayne — November 5, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
That’s a lot of ‘Tude for a simple question. I figured there would be some Gore fans here who might know what if any practical impact he is having.
BTW, I neither own nor thump a Bible.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pm1000 trees on my property thus becoming “carbon nuteral†assuring my presents on the planet for all time…….WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?
Comment by Billy Hill — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
I’m going to give everyone presents!
Comment by bob lahblah — November 5, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Recommend (1) | Report Abuse
Don’t fall for it bob, hillbilly doesn’t have enough room on his property for a double wide trailer where would he put trees. And isn’t that a chainsaw he’s carrying?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pmGiven the state of the media at these times the media would have given equal or more time to Hitler during WWII just because he was interesting.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:36 pmThat’s a lot of ‘Tude for a simple question. I figured there would be some Gore fans here who might know what if any practical impact he is having.
BTW, I neither own nor thump a Bible.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
It’s hard to accomplish much when you naysayers run the MSM and bad mouth him at every turn. Intelligent people would probably err on the side of caution on the off chance he’s right. But you neocons can’t relate to what intelligent people do can you?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pmOh and Keltoi if you don’t like my attitude you can feel free to move on to another site any time you’d like. I’m not really in the mood to hear your whining today, or ever really.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pmDon’t fall for it bob, hillbilly doesn’t have enough room on his property for a double wide trailer where would he put trees. And isn’t that a chainsaw he’s carrying?
Comment by Shayne — November 5, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
I guess so…I think I mistook the chainsaw for a PhD in climatology!
November 5th, 2007 at 1:39 pmThink about what Gore is saying. At one time the accepted scientific fact, a CONSENSUS if you will, was that the world was flat. Those few who dared to disagree were deemed to be heretics.
Consensus is not science.
Comment by Beefeater — November 5, 2007 @ 1:36
That is like saying that AFTER the world was recognized to be round people went back and argued that no, it was in fact flat. Which isn’t what happened there or here. Gee you’re an idiot.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pm“WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?” — Comment by Billy Hill — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
I’m going to buy you SpellCheck and force you to use it before you post any more of your unintelligible drivel.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pmI guess so…I think I mistook the chainsaw for a PhD in climatology!
Comment by bob lahblah — November 5, 2007 @ 1:39
Carefull, hillbilly thinks PhD is talking dirty. Can you hear the banjo music?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:41 pmThe way to combat global warming is very simple, of course. Follow the example set by AlGore. Consume as much carbon as possible with a huge mansion, fleet of limos and a private jet, and then purchase “carbon credits†from Generation Investment Management, a company that AlGore chairs and is partially owned by AlGore himself. If anyone questions your hippocracy, just tell them that “the debate is over,†and accuse them of believing that “the world is flat.â€
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Well besides the fact that every statement you make is a bald faced lie and misrepresentation of these issues, do you actually believe that Gore is doing this to make money for himself? The delusion is astonishing, have you taken your meds?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pmThere are a greater percentage of astrophysicists who believe in the possibility of UFO’s being extraterrestrial vehicles than there are climatologists who don’t believe in the dangers of Global Warming. But when Kucinich said he believed that he saw a UFO, I didn’t see the media rush to find a scientist to back him up.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pmYou are misreading and misquoting the article.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
The article is pure crap, misreading and misquoting would be a good idea.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pmI think we should give equal time to every nut job wacko who has any idea at all.
And all neocon chickenhawks should be required to sit politely with their hands in laps and listen for the entire duration of the nut job wacko presentation.
That’ll keep them out of trouble. Maybe we won’t bomb Iran.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pmComment by Billy Hill — November 5, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Was there a point somewhere in that blather?
Comment by missmolly — November 5, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
I think the answer is inherent in the question.
And that answer is indeed “No, there is no point when Billy Hill posts.”
November 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pmI’d like to ask the trolls what percentage of agreement we would need in order for debate to end. Otherwise we’ll never be able to establish anything new as a fact. Or is that your point – to cement us in the dark ages of knowledge?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:49 pmKeitol, I think you get slammed with a lot of crap here that you don’t deserve, most of it simply ricochet from trolls like TDCON and Hill Billy.
But Luis M. had a good response to your original post. Why ask us if Gore has practical suggestions? Do you trust the posters here to represent Gore’s views accurately? You’d be much better served if you sought out the source materials and studied a little on your own.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:51 pmhungry hungry ‘hippocracy’?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:52 pmYou are misreading and misquoting the article.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Oh. I’m sorry. Let me quote exactly the paragraph in question:
If you’re not against the human-caused global warming theory (6%), then you’re in favor of the human-caused global warming theory (94%). Right? You’re either with them or you’re against them. Isn’t that the neo-con view?
November 5th, 2007 at 1:52 pmIt’s a lot easier for the naysayers to just bash Gore than it is for them to actually do anything that might morph into any kind of beneficial action.
If Bush (this will really stretch your powers of imagination) wanted to do anything about the ecological challenges we face I wonder what the lemmings would do then. Besides angle for ways to cash in on the taxpayer money being flung around (and mostly wasted probably) that is. Because, apparently, the government is completely hopeless and incapable of any constructive behavior nowadays, so we have to outsource and privatize everything.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:53 pmGore says in the film that 2005 is the hottest year on record. But NASA data actually show that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. — 2005 is not even in the top 10.
“An Inconvenient Truth†grossed about $50 million at the box office and millions more in DVD and book sales. Gore charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film. All in all, its little more than a seriously flawed $50 mil. commercial for Generation Investment Management.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Wow. Straw man after straw man.
1) Gore wasn’t talking about ‘the United States” when he declared 2005 the hottest year on record. He was speaking of the GLOBAL climate. And the facts back him up on that claim.
2) Gore was not the producer of the film, nor was he the distributor. He may have some profit participation, but anyone who thinks that making a documentary is way to get rich has no idea how the world of entertainment works.
But I suspect there’s a lot of things that you have no idea how they work.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:58 pmTCDim wrote: “To say that 95% of scientists agree is a blatent lie. Try reading some of these 228 articles (number growing by the day), rather than following this blind “the debate is over’ argument”.
Do you have any real evidence besides the garbage link you provided? Why not be a real man and debate global warming one on one? Oh I forgot, you’re a chicken-hawk and too cowardly.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pm“Yes, Gore and Arafat, too.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007″
the stupid, it burns! how the hell did it take you 68 comments to mention that? other trolls mock you.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:00 pmYes, Gore and Arafat, too
Comment by TCDon
This response is so old and played you’re committing copyright infringement. Pathetic. Why don’t you get on your stegosaurus and go bury that one in Mr. Slate’s gravel pit.
Are you a bot?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pmThink about what Gore is saying. At one time the accepted scientific fact, a CONSENSUS if you will, was that the world was flat. Those few who dared to disagree were deemed to be heretics.
Consensus is not science.
Comment by Beefeater — November 5, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
It wasn’t “scientists” who decreed that the world was flat, it was religious dogma not subject to evidence — unlike the current discussion.
Clearly, you have no idea what “science” is.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pmBeefeater: “Consensus is not science.”
Where on earth did you get that idea? Of course “consensus” is part of science. During the 50’s and 60’s, the consensus among medical professionals and scientists was that cigarettes caused cancer. A few doctors and scientists were paid by industry to offer dissenting positions. They worked for phony thinktanks like “The Tobacco Institute” funded by the tobacco industry. Conservatives were able to site these phony store-bought opinions as legitimate science.
PAY ATTENTION TO WHO’S SIGNING THE CHECKS AND WHAT’S IN IT FOR THEM.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pm“PAY ATTENTION …Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — November 5, 2007″
and that’s where you lost him.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pmConservatives were able to site these phony store-bought opinions as legitimate science.
That’s a perfect description. It’s all prepackaged, fast-food slogans and responses.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pmTCDIM @68: “Yes, Gore and Arafat, too.”
WHat about all these Nobel Laureates, are they evil?
2007 – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:07 pm2006 – Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
2005 – International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
2004 – Wangari Maathai
2003 – Shirin Ebadi
2002 – Jimmy Carter
2001 – United Nations, Kofi Annan
2000 – Kim Dae-jung
1999 РM̩decins Sans Fronti̬res
1998 – John Hume, David Trimble
1997 – International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
1996 РCarlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Jos̩ Ramos-Horta
1995 – Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
1994 – Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
1993 – Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
1992 РRigoberta Mench̼ Tum
1991 – Aung San Suu Kyi
1990 – Mikhail Gorbachev
1989 – The 14th Dalai Lama
1988 – United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
1987 – Oscar Arias Sánchez
1986 – Elie Wiesel
1985 – International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
1984 – Desmond Tutu
1983 – Lech Walesa
1982 – Alva Myrdal, Alfonso GarcÃa Robles
1981 – Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1980 РAdolfo P̩rez Esquivel
1979 – Mother Teresa
1978 – Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin
1977 – Amnesty International
1976 – Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan
1975 – Andrei Sakharov
1974 – Seán MacBride, Eisaku Sato
1973 – Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho
1972 – The prize money for 1972 was allocated to the Main Fund
1971 – Willy Brandt
1970 – Norman Borlaug
1969 – International Labour Organization
1968 РRen̩ Cassin
1967 – The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1966 – The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1965 – United Nations Children’s Fund
1964 – Martin Luther King
1963 – International Committee of the Red Cross, League of Red Cross Societies
1962 – Linus Pauling
1961 РDag Hammarskj̦ld
1960 – Albert Lutuli
1959 – Philip Noel-Baker
1958 – Georges Pire
1957 – Lester Bowles Pearson
1956 – The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1955 – The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1954 – Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1953 – George C. Marshall
1952 – Albert Schweitzer
1951 РL̩on Jouhaux
1950 – Ralph Bunche
1949 – Lord Boyd Orr
1948 – The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1947 – Friends Service Council, American Friends Service Committee
1946 – Emily Greene Balch, John R. Mott
1945 – Cordell Hull
1944 – International Committee of the Red Cross
1943 – The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1942 – The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1941 – The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1940 – The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1939 – The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1938 – Nansen International Office for Refugees
1937 – Robert Cecil
1936 – Carlos Saavedra Lamas
1935 – Carl von Ossietzky
1934 – Arthur Henderson
1933 – Sir Norman Angell
1932 – The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1931 – Jane Addams, Nicholas Murray Butler
1930 РNathan Șderblom
1929 – Frank B. Kellogg
1928 – The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1927 – Ferdinand Buisson, Ludwig Quidde
1926 – Aristide Briand, Gustav Stresemann
1925 – Sir Austen Chamberlain, Charles G. Dawes
1924 – The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1923 – The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1922 – Fridtjof Nansen
1921 – Hjalmar Branting, Christian Lange
1920 РL̩on Bourgeois
1919 – Woodrow Wilson
1918 – The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1917 – International Committee of the Red Cross
1916 – The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1915 – The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1914 – The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1913 – Henri La Fontaine
1912 – Elihu Root
1911 – Tobias Asser, Alfred Fried
1910 – Permanent International Peace Bureau
1909 – Auguste Beernaert, Paul Henri d’Estournelles de Constant
1908 – Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Fredrik Bajer
1907 – Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, Louis Renault
1906 – Theodore Roosevelt
1905 – Bertha von Suttner
1904 – Institute of International Law
1903 – Randal Cremer
1902 – Élie Ducommun, Albert Gobat
1901 РHenry Dunant, Fr̩d̩ric Passy
OK, let me break this down for you. ralph already said correctly that 2005 was the hottest year for Earth, not the U.S., which was indeed 1934. Now, I know this might be hard for you to accept, but the Earth =/= the U.S. The U.S. makes up 6% of the above water landmass, and 2% of the entire globe
(see ).
So for the U.S. to have the hottest year on record in 1934, doesn’t mean the WORLD had the warmest year in 1934. Its a global average. This is hard science and math, no political B.S.
Its good there are dissenters for the global warming science. That allows the scientific community at large to continually test and refine their theories. But the minute the media politicizes it, the true science case is lost.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:07 pm>>Keitol, I think you get slammed with a lot of crap here that you don’t deserve, most of it simply ricochet from trolls like TDCON and Hill Billy.
I know, I am collateral damage and my view is deeply unpopular here, but it is worth it for the occasional quality debate. I just ignore the personal stuff, I am a heartless conservative after all. GW is an issue that gets people pissed off faster than almost anything, I have noticed.
But Luis M. had a good response to your original post. Why ask us if Gore has practical suggestions? Do you trust the posters here to represent Gore’s views accurately?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 5, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
I am less interested in Gore than I am in TPs opinion of him. Debating Gore’s opinion of media coverage is pointless. I was trying to inject some interest in an otherwise rather dry thread.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:08 pmComment by TCDon
You’re not going to get anywhere in life believing what Glenn Beck has to say. Pathetic.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:14 pmYes, Gore and Arafat, too.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
You’re right, Gore is the opportunist. Bush and Cheney are the idealists. Thanks for straigtening us out.
And the movie was successful not because it made sense but because it was so darn entertaining. I get such a kick out of all those documentaries.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:20 pmComment by troll buster — November 5, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
They gave that damn Mother Theresa the prize! Well that just proves what a crock it all is. She’s a Catholic you know. This prize should only go to Evangelicals otherwise it means nothing, nothing I tell you. After all what good does a Peace Prize do when you are going to be left behind during the rapture!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pmJust like he was trying to cast doubt on whether Rudy Guliani tortured people in yesterdays thread, for 14 hours straight.
He’s UNITROLL.
And I can smell him from a mile away.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 5, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
That is weird, I wasn’t online yesterday, pehaps your smelling needs checking.
Explain something to me, not just Bartlebee, anyone. Why does is it make you guys feel so good to deny a persons legitimate identity? The freak who hijacked the Thinkfast thread with the La Raza jazz this morning, I can understand that, it was so transparent. When someone gets on and starts spouting Apocalyptic crap from the Bible and wants you to debate them, I can see that too. But why is it so hard to believe that there are several conservatives who disagree with you? Why do they all have to be the same person? It makes no sense.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pmComment by StrikerG — November 5, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
Great post StrikerG, just the kind of info that makes a trolls head assplode.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:26 pmThink about what Gore is saying. At one time the accepted scientific fact, a CONSENSUS if you will, was that the world was flat. Those few who dared to disagree were deemed to be heretics.
Consensus is not science.
Comment by Beefeater — November 5, 2007 @ 1:36
Long before Christianity, the ancient Greeks had figured out that the earth was round, and one of them was actually able to mathematically calculate the circumference of the earth to within a few percent. After the fall of Rome, science (along with most of Western Europe) fell into the dark ages where religious superstition reigned supreme. Many of the scientific discoveries made during the late dark ages/age of enlightenment were actually rediscoveries of things that the ancients had figured out long before them.
Those who had advocated a flat earth were not scientists, they were philosophers and theologians; those who dared to disagree with their views were excommunicated from the Church and risked exile, imprisonment, fines, torture, and even death.
The same crackpots who so vehemently disagree with global warming typically have contempt for the principles of science and the scientific method in general, and are probably the same fools who believe that the earth and universe are only 6,000 years old and that every species of animal that ever existed lived within walking distance of Noah’s home.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:29 pmThis whole debate seems silly to me.
Even if Gore and hundreds of reputable scientists are wrong, by following their advice; we would have a healthier and cleaner planet. That sounds good to me. I’d like to leave my great grandchildren a healthy and clean planet to live on.
And, if Gore and hundreds of reputable scientists are correct, the human race – and all of God’s creatures – survive on the only home we have.
Again, why are we debating this simple choice? What could the right siders possibly not like about living on a cleaner and healither planet? Or is it that they just don’t like Gore and they are willing to hasten our own demise.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:31 pmI think we should give equal time to every nut job wacko who has any idea at all.
And all neocon chickenhawks should be required to sit politely with their hands in laps and listen for the entire duration of the nut job wacko presentation.
That’ll keep them out of trouble. Maybe we won’t bomb Iran.
Comment by RUCerious
Yeah, right after we waterboard them…
November 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pmI’m not billing anyone for this blogging time, oh hater of facts. Are you o.k. btw? You seem to be off your meds. Are you going to make it 25 more days until your next government check arrives?
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Such witty banter, did you learn that at your “law school”?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:33 pmStratRat, I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pmSuch witty banter, did you learn that at your “law school�
Comment by Shayne — November 5, 2007
No, be he does watch Law and Order.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pm“More likely he lurned in home school”
Same place he lurnded about the scientific method and statistical analysis.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pmThere are those who believe that bigger governent is good because it gives them more power. Those people are called Democrats.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
No, that is called BushCo, take a peek outside your own arse and you can actually see the carnage REALLY Big Government has done.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pmMore likely he lurned in home school!
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 5, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Oh yeah, “Lawyering for Dummies”.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pmThere can’t be legitimate disagreement, you know, because AlGore is god.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
No. You and several of your cronies don’t have legitimate disagreement because you refuse to even consider the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing to the anthropoegenic source of global climate change. Instead, you respond to every “Global Warming” thread with the same hackneyed comebacks that have been debunked time and time again. Do you think that if you keep posting the same lies from Lindzen and his cronies that they’re eventually going to come true?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmGood people.
It is really pointless to debate science with people who believe using compact fluorescents “emboldens terrorists”. You may despise them, you may ridicule them, but you will never convince them. In order to be convinced, one must possess the power of reason. I think it’s safe to say that “reason” has been eradicated from the right wing; it’s useless to them just like compassion and empathy.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmThose people are called Democrats.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Oh that right Democrats like things like regulation. Republican like gasoline at $3.29 and Blackwater mercenaries making $100,000 a year and handling “intelligence” instead of those evil types like Valerie Plame. Is my face red!
November 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pmThe problem is that politicians, mostly Democrats, will use this “global warming is proven fact†and “the debate is over†mantra as an excuse for added government control over free enterprise. There are those who believe that bigger governent is good because it gives them more power. Those people are called Democrats.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
It’s not about “big government,” but a certain amount of regulation is in order. So far it’s the only mechanism that actually works in getting industry to practice better environmental stewardship. Voluntary industry standards only last until people stop paying attention.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:43 pmSure Rockyroad, sure.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 5, 2007 @ 2:44
Don’t you know Bart, Keltoi is the only honest troll around here. No namechanging or namejacking or disrupting threads just to disrupt them. His first absurd posts were just to inject some life to the thread. Never is his intention to disrupt the discussion, he’s just too effing honorable.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:47 pmSorry Keltoi, but our cover has been blown.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
If you two want to talk about getting blown maybe you should go to one of your Republican sites.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pmSorry Keltoi, but our cover has been blown. According to the libs, we work for a gov’t run secret Psyops factory. We probably have side-by-side cubicles. There can’t be legitimate disagreement, you know, because AlGore is god.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Whoa…I am talking to myself…
The funny thing is, I had someone tell me point blank I was one of THEM. They really believe there are government psy-ops people trying to disrupt TP.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pmStratRat, I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Comment by Shayne
Thanks…Our entire existence is predicated on a clean globe. We cannot afford to get this one wrong. I mean, even the right siders clean their own houses every once in a while, don’t they?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pmIt always amazes me that these conservatives lack a full understanding of science or fact based decision making. Let us look at few examples:
1. Evolution is a theory, thus it is nothing more than a guess.
2. 2005 was the hottest year on earth trumped by the average temperature for one nation on earth.
3. Gore invented the internet. No Gore never made such a statement. He did say that he was one of the congressional group that was instrumental in founding the internet. The internet actually arose from a DARPA sponsored data sharing program. Gore and a few others saw the potential to expand this into what became the internet. Gore has been recognized for his role by a number of professional organizations.
3. Many scientific papers cite to pioneering global warming studies using the theories, formulas and computer models to support their work. However, this does not count unless the author also says: “I am a firm believer in global warming.” You know, the same way that every scientific paper using previous work establishing that the world is round has a disclaimer on the first page saying “And I also agree that the world is round.”
November 5th, 2007 at 2:49 pmWhoa…I am talking to myself…
The funny thing is, I had someone tell me point blank I was one of THEM. They really believe there are government psy-ops people trying to disrupt TP.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Doesn’t matter if you’re talking to yourself or somebody else. Doesn’t even matter why you post here. What does matter is that you don’t have anything of any value to add to a discussion just more debunked talking points and all you ever do is distract from the subject. You don’t like us calling you on it, feel free to leave, any time.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:50 pmThanks…Our entire existence is predicated on a clean globe. We cannot afford to get this one wrong. I mean, even the right siders clean their own houses every once in a while, don’t they?
Comment by StratRat — November 5, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Does straightening up the house before the Guatemalan maid arrives count as “cleaning their own house?”
November 5th, 2007 at 2:50 pmI mean, even the right siders clean their own houses every once in a while, don’t they?
Comment by StratRat — November 5, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
No, but I heard they do vacuum their Doublewides.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 5, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
You give them too much credit. I think they hope to get blown in their doublewides and that’s why they turn on the vacuum cleaners.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:53 pm3. Gore invented the internet.
3. Many scientific papers cite to pioneering global warming studies using the theories, formulas and computer models to support their work.
Comment by JMOHR — November 5, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
As any fool can plainly see, you have used the number 3 consecutively for two successive bullet points. A correct numbered list would have used a 4 for the second of these points (the fourth point overall).
This tiny typographical error thus throws the entire premise of your argument into disarray, and to wit I can only conclude that evolution IS a myth, 2005 was NOT the hottest year on record, Al Gore DID invent the Internet, and the world IS indeed flat.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pmThere are those who believe that bigger governent is good because it gives them more power. Those people are called Democrats.
Comment by TCDon — November 5, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
As usual, TCDon’s understanding of history is on par with his low IQ. Government grew during the 80’s and early 90’s under Reagan and Bush. The size of government shrinked under Clinton. Government has again increased in size under Bush II.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pmThis tiny typographical error thus throws the entire premise of your argument into disarray, and to wit I can only conclude that evolution IS a myth, 2005 was NOT the hottest year on record, Al Gore DID invent the Internet, and the world IS indeed flat.
Comment by toasterhead — November 5, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
toasterhead, go get some fresh air, we’ve all been breathing too much troll dung.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:56 pmIt’s not about “big government,†but a certain amount of regulation is in order. So far it’s the only mechanism that actually works in getting industry to practice better environmental stewardship. Voluntary industry standards only last until people stop paying attention.
Comment by toasterhead — November 5, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
I’m willing to bet that roughly the same argument was floated by the meatpackers when the FDA was established. Even most conservatives are probably glad that there is some inspection of their food, although even this is being gutted (sorry) by this administration.
But it’s always the same argument: “You’re interfering with free enterprise! Waaah!” Yet I suspect they do like untainted food, clean air, clean water . . . and without government regulation they’d have no assurance of any of that.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:57 pmSo, Keltoi – you say that you’re interested in our views with regard to global warming…
In a nutshell, here they are:
1. Serious changes appear to be happening in Earth’s climate, i.e, more storms, stronger storms, drought, rapid melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, sea level rising, etc. etc.
2. Almost all the science appears to validate the theory that man is increasingly responsible for climate change via pollution, fossil fuel consumption, etc.
3. Action should be taken both at the individual level and that of (world) government to slow down the processes.
4. Whether or not it falls out that man is responsible for global warming, it is to our benefit as a species that we clean up our act.
There you have it. The progressive view in a nutshell.
Now, we’ve told you ours, so…
What is YOURview…?
November 5th, 2007 at 2:59 pmtoasterhead, go get some fresh air, we’ve all been breathing too much troll dung.
Comment by Shayne — November 5, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
Just trying out a bit of Conserva-Logic®, that’s all.
It’s quite fun, actually. You don’t need to think at all. It’s kinda like sending your cerebrum on vacation and responding only with the knee-jerk part of your medulla.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:00 pmTo say that 95% of scientists agree is a blatent lie. Try reading some of these 228 articles (number growing by the day), rather than following this blind “the debate is over†argument.
http://schnittshow.970wfla.com/globalwarming.html
Comment by TCDunce — November 5, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
TCDunce,
Articles?
You forgot to include this “article†from the internationally renowned climatologist, Dr. Meskimen.
http://img255.imageshack.us/my.php?image=globalwarmingltrva5.png
November 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pmBut it’s always the same argument: “You’re interfering with free enterprise! Waaah!†Yet I suspect they do like untainted food, clean air, clean water . . . and without government regulation they’d have no assurance of any of that.
Comment by gummitch — November 5, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
I know – it’s so cute. And what’s more, they think there’s such a thing as the “free market.”
November 5th, 2007 at 3:02 pmDon’t you know Bart, Keltoi is the only honest troll around here. No namechanging or namejacking or disrupting threads just to disrupt them. His first absurd posts were just to inject some life to the thread. Never is his intention to disrupt the discussion, he’s just too effing honorable.
Comment by Shayne — November 5, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Sarcasm noted, but I don’t namejack or namechange or namecall or disrupt just to disrupt. Ever. Why would I waste my time? I was trying to get an opinion from TP on Gore’s public policy efficacy. If that was absurd, your absurdity threshold is pretty low.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pmWilliam Gray has made himself into a drooling imbecile. As for John Christy, until last year he argued himself blue in the face that warming was not occurring. Now he concedes that it is happening, because the evidence is irrefutable. Yet he continues to cling to an ideologically driven view, namely that humans aren’t involved, that is at odds with the science. John Christy has discredited himself.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:05 pmBut gummitch, it was the illustrious Ronnie Reagan, most overrated president ever, who got rid of most of the inspectors at meat packing plants. Bush just finished off the job.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm5%? How much airtime does Fox give them? 50%? Sound about right?
Comment by bob lahblah — November 5, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
The number is nowhere near 5%. Maybe 1%.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pmIt’s the height of irony for any of our triolls to domplain about Democrats and Big Government or Free Entertprise. Bush has the biggest government on roecord, and the least free enterprise in history. that’s why TCDon can’t understand that everything he says is a Glen beck quote, because the righties all march in a very tiny worldview lockstep. The fact is, Bushco has subverted Ameican democracy and has created the conditions for the next world war, all over power and oil profits. That’s a sick bunch, deserving only of imprisonment or execution.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:11 pmTCDon is even stupider than I imagined. Hard to believe.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:12 pmKinda like huffing spraypaint.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 5, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
But without the aerosol aftertaste. :)
November 5th, 2007 at 3:17 pmWow! Annie to the rescue!
>>1. Serious changes appear to be happening in Earth’s climate, i.e, more storms, stronger storms, drought, rapid melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, sea level rising, etc. etc.
Agree that there appears to be change.
>>2. Almost all the science appears to validate the theory that man is increasingly responsible for climate change via pollution, fossil fuel consumption, etc.
Pollution is bad, it certainly isn’t helping. The climate has always changed over Earth’s history, however. There is validity to the theory we are doing it, I agree.
>>3. Action should be taken both at the individual level and that of (world) government to slow down the processes.
Well, that was sort of what I was getting at – does Gore have a workable plan?
4. Whether or not it falls out that man is responsible for global warming, it is to our benefit as a species that we clean up our act.
There you have it. The progressive view in a nutshell.
What is YOURview…?
Comment by Leftside Annie — November 5, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Not too far from yours, which is why I find it so odd that I am getting such a ration of sh*t over this.
Lets assume all Gore says is true. Lets assume every American saw things like he did. What would we have to do to stop global warming? Is it possible without reverting to pre-industrial living? And how could you possibly predict with any accuracy the outcome of changing your life without actually doing it at astronomical cost to our economy? And does anyone think China and India are going to stop using fossil fuels?
I guess that for all I hear about GW, I never hear any say THIS is what we need to do and the polar bears will be safe. Doing something is better than nothing, but I think the discussion is almost totally theoretical because achieving any international action plan is impossible.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pmwhat awful karma is it of the US that fate has denied us a real person like Gore for POTUS – you know, one with intelligence, knowledge, and morality.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:21 pm.
The number is nowhere near 5%. Maybe 1%.
Comment by VerbalKint — November 5, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Even if the number were 50% the thing to look at is motivation. I think that it’s safe to say that 100%, of “scientists” who disagree with the consensus that humans are destroying the environment, are on the payroll of the energy industry or are “true believers” of the Christ myth.
I defy anyone to identify a single scientist, who refutes the fact that humans are killing the planet, that doesn’t have a financial, or theological/political, incentive.
And just to prevent the inevitable “dispute” by trolls; there are countless climatologists who have zero motivation for “anti-Americanism” who have concluded that our planet is in peril. If you are concerned with motivation all one has to do is follow the money.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:25 pmYou panty waist liberals only want to stifle free enterprise and the great American industries by your limits. Our corporations need to be totally free to produce and expand without your bleeding heart protections of children, the environment, workers, and resources. Our corporations have quarterly profit goals to meet and you commies think about the **snicker** “future” and “communities”. Without us corporatists, you sniveling whiners wouldn’t have two nickels to rub together. Our corporations have the God-given right to dominate the earth and everything in, on, and around it for “the good life, financial liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” of the few with the guts to grab it.
/snark off
November 5th, 2007 at 3:27 pmHet metal! You were going to provide us with the text in the Geneva Convention that prohibited us from invading Iraq? Have you found it yet? It’s been about a week!
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Unfortunately for you, mikey the liar, that line was indeed printed here recently. Did your special ed instructor not show to read it to you? Is that why you can’t read it yourself? Here’s the same question I would ask your presidon’t Bush: are you evil or merely incompetent?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:28 pmGore answered your questions completely, honestly and factually, michael, now, do like everybody else, and go watch the documentary instead of arguing with your shadow. You’ll never wi; your shadow has more brains than you.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:30 pmSo, YOU can’t answer the question?
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Do you always question the answer?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:31 pmS! These guys are after the grant money they hope will appear for their research!
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Ah, you’re admitting that your oilmen are buying off the scientists that are rightwing enough to happily lie to the American people for a few bucks. Now you’re getting somewhere!
November 5th, 2007 at 3:32 pmYou’re WRONG! Point me to it?
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Find it yourself? How lazy are you? Republican-lazy or shitstain lazy?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:33 pmI guess that for all I hear about GW, I never hear any say THIS is what we need to do and the polar bears will be safe. Doing something is better than nothing, but I think the discussion is almost totally theoretical because achieving any international action plan is impossible.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
We could put money into research for alternative fuel sources by purchasing carbon credits for one… You know, instead of spending money on disseminating false information about climate change and Al Gore.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:33 pmYou’re WRONG!
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Sorry, your post was not in the form of a question.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:34 pmLunch time!
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
run away, run away, little wingnut fool!
November 5th, 2007 at 3:34 pmLets assume all Gore says is true. Lets assume every American saw things like he did. What would we have to do to stop global warming? Is it possible without reverting to pre-industrial living? And how could you possibly predict with any accuracy the outcome of changing your life without actually doing it at astronomical cost to our economy? And does anyone think China and India are going to stop using fossil fuels?
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
It is possible without reverting to pre-industrial living, but it’s going to take some initial investment in R&D. Among many things, we need better wind and solar technology, cellulosic ethanol, better grid management, better urban planning, more public transportation, and better origin labeling so we know just how far the components of our consumer products have travelled to get here.
I believe one key is to revert to pre-industrial agriculture living, particularly if we want to start replacing fossil fuels with biofuels. Input-intensive industrial farming methods deplete the soil, pollute the water table, destroy rainforest carbon sinks, and encourage development of more-and-more marginal land. Encouraging more organic farming and less agribusiness would be a huge start.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:34 pmLunch time!
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Yeah, run off. God forbid you should post your inane comments on your own time. I’m sure your employer would be overjoyed to know how you spend his time.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:37 pmLunch time!
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Didn’t we already have you for lunch? Or are you ready for lunch? Are you sure you are hungry? Are you hungry for food or hungry for some validation? Or do you have to justify leaving because you ran out of talking points? How will we get along without your questions?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:38 pmLunch time!
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
It’s time to dig into that bucket of scat while it’s still hot and steamy.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:40 pmGerman college kids won a prize for developing a total solar house, inside and out. Several other countries had smiliar projects. Our youth are on the track….also ethenol has been around for 30 years however until the oil companies can make a profit it will be contained. People in Iowa are using ethenol for heating their homes as well.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:40 pmSo Keltoi there are many cheaper ways to run our economy the powers that be just haven’t figured out how to keep their fingers in the pie.
Keltoi – for one thing, I think we are going to have to start with a big shift in our priorities.
IMO, the Bush administration is far too focused on profits – at the expense of the environment. Their motto? “Full speed ahead – and damn the torpedoes!!”
We are going to HAVE to bite the bullet sooner or later – the bullet of regulation and strict enforcement. We just cannot keep “sh*tting in our own dish” (as my mother liked to put it)…
Polluting industries need to be forced to stop/severely cut back polluting with a combination “carrot and stick” approach, i.e., fines/taxes/cuts in profit for polluting, and incentivized with generous tax breaks for developments in alternative energy, cuts in pollution, etc.
The same methodology could be applied to individuals as well.
And, when it comes right down to it, we (the US) could have a big impact on the rest of the world if we say, imposed steep tariffs on products from countries like China who are big polluters and vice versa for countries who pollute less.
This isn’t anywhere near a complete plan; they are just some quick random thoughts off the top of my head.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:40 pmThat’s the best answer algore can come up with?
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Yep because you can beat a dead horse but you can’t make it run. And you people won’t listen to any logic only what your handler tell you the truth is. Why bother anymore.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:43 pmOh – and another thought occurs to me: we could stop flushing those billions of dollars down the war toilet and use some of it to develop alternative energy…
Just a thought.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:44 pmSorry, your post was not in the form of a question.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — November 5, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Fantastic… :-D
November 5th, 2007 at 3:50 pmOh – and another thought occurs to me: we could stop flushing those billions of dollars down the war toilet and use some of it to develop alternative energy…
Just a thought.
Comment by Leftside Annie — November 5, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Oh come on, LA! That’s only about $400 million a day! what could you possibly do with $400 million a day?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:52 pmPittance!
Lunch time!
Comment by michael — November 5, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Does that mean you are going to remove your head from your ass for a while?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:55 pmDoes that mean you are going to remove your head from your ass for a while?
Comment by Shayne — November 5, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
maybe after lunch.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:01 pmActually, we can’t stop global warming. It’s a natural process which has been artificially accelerated by the addition of tons upon tons of carbon dioxide to our atmosphere over hundreds of years. Imagine a boat being buffeted by waves. Now and then a particularly big wave comes along and pushes the boat onto its side. Generally, the boat rights itself, but if you take all the people on board and line them up on the same side of the boat, you’ve made it a whole lot more likely that the boat will capsize. That’s analogous to what we’ve done with our climate-abuse.
At this point, the best we can hope for is to minimize the effects. Phasing out internal combustion engines and controlling population growth would be incredibly important factors in ensuring that we have a future on this planet; but both of these are long-term solutions to multiple problems. In the short term, limiting energy use by turning down thermostats, switching to energy-efficient vehicles, replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents, and buying locally-grown organic produce would all help. On the international front, trading in carbon credits is likely to have a noticeable impact in the short term. Globally, of course, there will have to be a long term strategy as well, and that brings us back to my first couple of suggestions above: buy more bicycles, and use birth control. Simple.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:02 pmAnnie, Keltoi is a troll.
Just FYI.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 5, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Okay, maybe Keitol IS a troll. (I’m still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s a reasonable conservative who comes here for some spicy lib-baiting and nothing more.)
But if he IS a troll, you gotta admit that, barring this bizarre “all trolls are the work of a single poster” theory that’s all in vogue, Keitol is one of the more intellectually honest trolls around.
He’s no Squegeeboo, but neither is he TCDn. Or Michael?
November 5th, 2007 at 4:09 pmCalling it like he sees it. Run, Gore, run!
November 5th, 2007 at 4:11 pmAsk mr “Keltoi†these questions with YES or NO responses only permitted, and you will see what I and a lot of others, already see.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 5, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
I agree with you on a lot of issues, Bartlebee, but I guess we just have different views of what makes one a troll. I don’t think that contrary opinions automatically qualifies one for trolldom.
I think a troll properly labeled is a poster who shows up here just to stir things up and who has no interest in or ability to support anything they say. Use of epithets like “libtards” helps seal the deal, too.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:14 pmI’ll save Annie the trouble and take the Bartlebee Troll challenge. At least, this version of me will from the depths of the NSA ;)
Looking at these questions and trying to answer them Yes or No is pretty simplistic, there are nuances to some of them. This yes or no thing is not a very valid method of debate, false dilemma and all, but I’ll go for it with that caveat.
YES or NO
1. Was the war in Iraq justified? Yes.
2. Is global warming a reality? Yes.
3. Is waterboarding ok? No (and I actually changed my opinion on this issue thanks to a lengthy debate on TP last week)
4. Should we bomb Iran? No……no. They should not get nukes, though.
5. Is spying on Americans without warrants, ok? No.
6. Did man live on the earth more than 6000 years ago? Yes. The planet is 4.6 billion years old and organized religion are Bronze age fables.
7. Is Ann Coulter a good person? No, the public personna she puts forth is pretty spiteful.
There! Am I real?
November 5th, 2007 at 4:20 pmThere! Am I real?
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Sorry, that’s up to the Blue Fairy to decide.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:21 pm(I’m still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s a reasonable conservative who comes here for some spicy lib-baiting and nothing more.)
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 5, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
It IS a guilty pleasure, but I promise I keep the lights on…
November 5th, 2007 at 4:21 pmBecause he’s claiming to be a progressive, NOT a “reasonable conservativeâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 5, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
WHAT???? WHEN????
November 5th, 2007 at 4:23 pmLook, Bartlebee, maybe you’ve seen sh!t from Keltoi that I haven’t. Maybe I haven’t logged enough hours. But I can only comment on what I’ve seen. I’ve seen Keltoi pull some cracked ideas out of his butt, sure. And he does put up some whacked-out logic in support of his points.
But I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to suspect that Keltoi and TCDon, for instance, are the same person using two different names. And I haven’t seen Keltoi commit anything like the kind of intellectual meltdown that TCDon, michael or any of the other trolls regularly sport as their trademarks.
Maybe I’m just not as deeply immersed in the TP social whirl as you are, but I haven’t seen it.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:23 pmIf I read you right, Bartlebee, you’re claiming that because Keltoi believes the war in Iraq was justified, that alone makes him a troll. Do I have that right?
November 5th, 2007 at 4:28 pm‘Bout bleedin’ time someone said that. The MSM gives equal time to every f***in’ crackpot in an effort to be “fair”. Well, does that mean you give equal time to someone who thinks the Earth is flat? Or that the sun revolves around the Earth? That Xenu created the Earth? That black people are inferior because of the color of their skin? A person who thinks there was no Holocaust? That Hitler was a nice guy? That water isn’t wet? That fire isn’t hot?
November 5th, 2007 at 4:31 pmKeltoi is quite right in bringing up those points. They need to be discussed. People need to be educated as to the cost and sacrifices needed to address this problem. They also need to know what the impact will be should no action be taken.
However, we can never really get there, can we? The MSM keeps us at the level of discussing whether or not there is a problem. The debate and the decision making never advance further.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:39 pmFunny, …uh, “Ralph†is it?…. funny how you seem to want to effeminatize us all here TP.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 5, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Jesus Christ, Bartlebee, not EVERYONE who disagrees with you is a frickin’ troll. And you don’t do your argument any good but resorting to thinly-veiled swipes instead of presenting the merits of your view.
You sound like more of a troll than most trolls. Not michael, though.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:40 pmAhem,
Sadly, the socialists / communists can’t refrain from Stalinist tactics of “silencing†their detractors. Moreover, the drumbeat has started to “nationalize†our energy industries, so that libs can withhold resources from anyone they designate “unworthyâ€, just as was done in the USSR.
Capitalism has brought forth the Tesla Motors Roadster and other auto industry electric, electric hybrids and gas hybrid vehicles. Capitalism has brought forth compact flourescent bulbs, of which Wal-Mart has exceeded their 100 million bulb yearly target 3 months early. In Germany, capitalism has backed solar power farms to be built through investment and long term contracts with municipalities.
There is no need to leap to communism / socialism to force green solutions. Capitalism can deliver solutions while stimulating the economy, provided leaders are visionary enough to provide market situations to achieve such gains.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:44 pmIf I read you right, Bartlebee, you’re claiming that because Keltoi believes the war in Iraq was justified, that alone makes him a troll.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — November 5, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
Well since I’ve been calling him a troll for hours, and he just made that declaration a few minutes ago, then the answer to your lamebrain question, would be no Monty.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 5, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
My bad for reading the following exchange as your justification for called Keltoi a troll:
1. Was the war in Iraq justified? Yes.
Comment by Keltoi — November 5, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Once again he rests my case.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 5, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Whatever, dude. Have your fun. I’ll probably still find you amusing when you go after trolls that deserve it — and there are plenty — but I know now where you’re really coming from.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:57 pmGore haters are psychos. The creepy kind.
what the hell did he ever do to anyone?
bite a fart, Gore haters. you’re the world’s bitterest losers.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:44 pmBush cultist on Gore: “How about, tried to steal the 2000 election?”
For the umpteenth time, you in-bred idiot, GORE WON FLORIDA! The media consortium’s study of the Florida 2000 election showed that under ANY counting standard, if all the votes in Florida were counted, Gore would have won.
Table 1
November 5th, 2007 at 7:14 pmCandidate Outcomes Based on Potential Recounts in Florida Presidential Election 2000
Review of All Ballots Statewide (Never Undertaken)
Review Method Winner Margin of Victory
Standard as set by each county Canvassing
Board during their survey Gore 171 votes
Fully punched chads and limited marks on
optical ballots Gore 115 votes
Any dimples or optical mark Gore 107 votes
One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore 60 votes
Sorry about the table above which didn’t come out right. If you want to see the report for yourselves, just Google on Keating report and 2000 election. Gore won Florida. Our Supreme Court installed Bush as president against the will of the voters by judicial coup. Three of them had family members working for the republican campaign. It’s an historical disgrace and it won’t go away. 100 years from now, history will see it as a judicial coup.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:22 pmHere’s a link to the original report: http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
Scroll down and look at table 1. Then, as you see that Gore wins under any counting standard if all Florida votes are counted, consider the fact that almost all newspaper stories on this had the headline “Bush still wins.”
November 5th, 2007 at 7:30 pmHey, finallyinsf, the above report represents reality. I suggest you look at it and stop lying to yourself and everyone else about the 2000 election. You’ve got your link. Now, shut up and read.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:33 pmRe elect Al Gore for president 2008. Join a draft Gore group to help nominate the most intelligent, diplomatic, visionary of our time. Run Al Run!
November 5th, 2007 at 7:50 pmHey Bush cultists: you posted that Gore tried to steal the 2000 election. I responded by linking to the report showing he should have won Florida. Now it’s up to you to either continue hiding in your rat holes or show some character and admit that you’ve been had by right wing propaganda.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:55 pmRHF, it looks like you’re right. I decided to come back a few hours later to see if anyone has a response to the facts. As usual, they skulk off to their muddy little holes and pretend the facts don’t exist.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:08 pmThere is something vaguely comical about the trolls’ attempts at convincing everyone else that the Earth is flat after all.
One more time for all of you slow wits out there: Global climate change is a fact, regardless of what Gore may or may not say, and his movie is actually irrelevant to the discussion.
But attacking the science behind global climate change based on the flaws in his movie does show your scientific illiteracy. That’s ok. It only makes it easier to discard your “arguments” that run along the lines of “consensus is not science”.
What a joke you people are.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:16 pmNO ‘Consensus’ on “Man-Made” Global Warming
Skeptical Scientists:
A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Aksel Wiin-Nielsen, Professor of Geophysical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Alfred H. Pekarek, Ph.D. Geology, Associate Professor of Geology, St. Cloud State University, USA
Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng, Canada
Andreas Prokoph, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University Tubingen, Germany
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Purdue University, USA
Antonino Zichichi, Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Ben Herman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist, Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Boris Winterhalter, Ph.D. Geology, Helsinki University, Finland
Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D. BioChemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA
Bruno Wiskel, B.Sc. Honours Geology, University of Albert, Canada
Carl Johan Friedrich (Frits) Böttcher, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Charles Gelman, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Public Health, University of Michigan, USA
Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Australia
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Clinton H. Sheehan, Ph.D. Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Arizona State University, USA
Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D. Biology, Rutgers University, USA
David Deming, B.S. Geology, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David E. Wojick, B.S. Civil Engineering, Ph.D. Mathematical Logic, University of Pittsburgh, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David L. Hill, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton, USA
David Nowell, M.Sc. Meteorology, Royal Meteorological Society, Canada
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Geology, University of Washington, USA
Donald G. Baker, Ph.D. Soils, Geology, University of Minnesota, USA
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Duncan Wingham, Ph.D. Physics, University of Bath, UK
Edward Wegman, Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics, University of Iowa, USA
Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Elliot Abrams, M.S. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Eric S. Posmentier, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth, USA
Fred Michel, B.Sc. Geological Sciences, M.Sc. Earth Sciences, Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, Canada
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Physics, Princeton, USA
G. Cornelis van Kooten, B.Sc. Geophysics, Ph.D. Agricultural & Resource Economics, Oregon State University, USA
Garth Paltridge, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George Kukla, Micropalentologist, Special Research Scientist of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D. Consulting Meteorologist, Germany
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD Geology, New Zealand
Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics and Physical Oceanography, University of British Columbia, Canada
Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Harry N.A. Priem, Professor Emeritus of Isotope and Planetary Geology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Henry R. Linden, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA
Howard Hayden, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Indur M. Goklany, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, India
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James O’Brien, Ph.D. Meteorology, Texas A&M University, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. Groundwater Hydrology, University of Arizona, USA
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, University of Queensland, Australia
Joe Sobel, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Joel Schwartz, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, USA
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany, Arizona State University, USA
Kenneth E.F. Watt, Ph.D. Zoology, University of Chicago, USA
Khabibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Lee C. Gerhard, Ph.D. Geology, University of Kansas, USA
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard, USA
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Mel Goldstein, Ph.D. Meteorology, NYU, USA
Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael D. Griffin, B.S. Physics, M.S. Applied Physics, Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, University of Washington, USA
Michel Salomon, M.D. University of Paris, Director, International Centre for Scientific Ecology, France
Neil Frank, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Nils-Axel Mörner, Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Ola M. Johannessen, Professor, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Norway
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate, Atmospheric Sensing Group, Tartu Astrophysical Observatory, Estonia
Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ph.D. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. Agronomist, Canada
Paul Copper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada
Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, Lawrence University, USA
Paul Reiter, Professor of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, France
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology, University of British Columbia, Canada
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Piers Corbyn, B.Sc Physics, M.Sc Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, UK
R. Timothy (Tim) Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, University of Nebraska, USA
Reid A. Bryson, B.A. Geology, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard C. Willson, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, USA
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke (Sr.), Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., Forest Microclimate Specialist, Canada
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert Johnston, M.S. Physics, B.A. Astronomy, USA
Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, University of Cambridge, Australia
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Sylvan H. Wittwer, Ph.D. Horticulture, University of Missouri, USA
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Alaska, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Timothy (Tim) F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Tom Harris, B. Eng. M. Eng. Mechanical Engineering (thermo-fluids), Canada
Tom V. Segalstad, B.S. Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
W. Dennis Clark, Ph.D. Botany, Sacramento State College, USA
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William Cotton, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, USA
William E. Reifsnyder, B.S. Meteorology, M.S. Ph.D. Forestry, Yale, USA
William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William (Bill) M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Wolfgang Thüne, Ph.D. Geography, University of Wuerzburg, Germany
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland
Meteorologists:
A.J. Colby, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Meteorologist WKYC-TV, USA
Andre Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Anthony Watts, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Chief Meteorologist KPAY-AM, USA
Arlo Gambell, AMS Certified Meteorologist, USA
Art Horn, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WVIT-TV, USA
Asmunn Moene, former Chief Meteorologist, Oslo, Norway
Bill Meck, Chief Meteorologist WLEX-TV, USA
Bill Steffen, Meteorologist WOOD-TV, USA
Bob Breck, B.S. Meteorology & Oceanography, University of Michigan, Chief Meteorologist WVUE-TV, USA
Brad Sussman, Meteorologist, USA
Brian Sussman, Meteorologist, USA
Bruce Schwoegler, B.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Christopher Plonka, Meteorologist USAF, USA
Craig James, B.S. Meteorology, Penn State University, Chief Meteorologist WOOD-TV, USA
Dan Maly, Retired Meteorologist WOIO-TV, USA
David Aldrich, B.S. Meteorology, North Carolina State University, Meteorologist WTXF-TV, USA
Dick Goddard, Chief Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Don Webster, Retired Meteorologist WEWS-TV, USA
Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Canada
Eugenio Hackbart, Chief Meteorologist MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center, Brazil
Herb Stevens, Meteorologist WNYT-TV, USA
James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Chief Meteorologist WCFT-TV, WJSU-TV, USA
Jason Russell, Meteorologist, WTEN-TV, USA
Joe Bastardi, B.S. Meteorology, Penn State, Expert Senior Forecaster AccuWeather, USA
John Coleman, Meteorologist, Founder of ‘The Weather Channel’, Chief Meteorologist KUSI-TV, USA
Jon Loufman, Meteorologist WOIO-TV, USA
Justin Berk, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Meteorologist WMAR-TV, USA
Karl Bohnak, B.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Meteorologist WLUC-TV, USA
Kevin Lemanowicz, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, Chief Meteorologist WFXT-TV, USA
Kevin Williams, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, Chief Meteorologist WHEC-TV, USA
Mark Koontz, Meteorologist WFMJ-TV, USA
Mark Breen, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Senior Meteorologist Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium, USA
Mark Johnson, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Chief Meteorologist, WEWS-TV, USA
Nick Morganelli, Free-Lance Meteorologist, USA
Rich Apuzzo, Chief Meteorologist Skyeye Weather, USA
Roy Leep, B.S. Meteorology, Florida State University, Meteorologist WTVT-TV, USA
Sally Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Shane Hollett, Meteorologist WMJI-FM, USA
Steven Nogueira, NWS Senior Meteorologist, USA
Terry Eliasen, B.S. Meteorology, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Meteorologist WBZ-TV, USA
Thomas B. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, USA
Tim Kelley, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist NECN, USA
Tom Chisholm, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, Lyndon State College, Chief Meteorologist WMTW-TV, USA
William Kininmonth, M.Sc, Colorado State University, Retired Head of Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Australia
Social Scientists:
Andrey Illarionov, Ph.D. Economics, St. Petersburg University, Russia
Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Daniel R. Simmons, B.A. Economics, Utah State University, USA
Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
James Inhofe, B.A. Economics, University of Tulsa, USA
John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Macquarie University, Mensa, Sydney, Australia
Marlo Lewis, B.A. Political Science, Ph.D. Government, Claremont McKenna College, USA
Margo Thorning, Ph.D. Economics, University of Georgia, USA
Myron Ebell, M.Sc. Economics, London School of Economics, USA
Richard Tol, Ph.D. Economics, Vrije Universiteit, The Netherlands
Richard W. Rahn, Ph.D. Business Economics, Columbia University, USA
Robert Bradley, B.A. Economics, Ph.D. Political Economy, University of Houston, USA
Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Economics, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Roger A. Pielke (Jr.), Ph.D. Political Science, University of Colorado, USA
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada
Thomas A. Birkland, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Washington, USA
Thomas Gale Moore, Ph.D. Economics, University of Chicago, USA
Vaclav Klaus, app. Ph.D. Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Czechoslovakia
William Nordhaus, Ph.D. Economics, MIT, USA
Deceased:
November 6th, 2007 at 7:03 amAugust H. Auer Jr., Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA (Died: June 10, 2007)
Michael J. Higatsberger, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria (Died: January 7, 2004)
Tor Ragnar Gerholm, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Stockholm, Sweden (Died: June 27, 2007)
William (Bill) A. Nierenberg, Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University, USA (Died: September 10, 2000)
William Mitchell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Oxford, UK (Died: October 30, 2002)
I get so tired of listening to the destructive lies of the right wing propaganda machine especially now that they’ve taken over much of the MSM. Especially the blatant lies, like the charge that Al Gore claimed he invented the internet:
“I believe EVERYTHING big Al Goreilla says about global warming and would like to thank him for inventing the internets. ” -post by Billy Hill
Actually, what Al Gore said was:
“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”
This was largely true. He was forward thinking as both a Congressman and Senator and not only stood behind, but initiated much of the legislation in these matters. I remember getting so tired of hearing him talk about the “Information Super Highway.” Doesn’t anyone else remember that? He used to say it almost as much as he said “lockbox” during the 2000 campaign. After he said this however, the right saw and opportunity, just like they did with John Kerry four years later, and began twisting the truth.
Well they are good at it. We need to get better at debunking their lies. We need to be just as aggressive as they are in waging this war.
I recently read an interesting quote having to do with just this matter:
“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong…”
Sound like someone we know? Junior and Chainbrain have used this technique with great success in playing on the fears of our citizenry.
However they didn’t invent the technique. This quote is lifted from a report prepared during WWII by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler’s psychological profile.
Another great right winger.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:02 amAs they teach in liberal law schools, when you have the facts on your side, argue the facts, when you have the law on your side argue the law, when you have neither, attack your opponent. That is exactly what Gore is doing and the reason he refuses to debate anyone, even politicians like himself.
There is no consensus. As a climatologist and one actively involved in multiple professional societies I can tell you the majority of TV mets (75%), forecasters (90%), climatologists (real ones not modelers) 77% believe in natural variability and only partial (mainly localized such as urbanization) anthropogenic (man-made) influences on climate.
By the way, Al Gore not only gets the science wrong, but he is wrong about John Christy. John participated in two chapters of the latest IPCC rport and is clearly in the mainstream of climate scientists. Gore is on the radical fringe. His advisor in An Inconvenient Truth, Maurice Strong head of the Rio Conference in 1992 said “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
November 6th, 2007 at 10:04 amComment by poptech — November 6, 2007 @ 7:03 am
The fact that you can actually generate a page-long list of dissenting scientists (by the way, having a B.A. in economics doesn’t make one a credible source for climatology theory) shows just how weak your position is.
Comment by jdNH — November 6, 2007 @ 10:04 am
77% of climatologists huh? Link please.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:12 amLast Survey of the American State Climatologists at their Annual Meeting. http://www.nationalcenter.org/Climatologists1097.html
These are the guys who work with real data, not the climate models that have a very poor undertanding of many of the key processes and that can be tweaked and adjusted to get whatever result you want.
As the IPCC Lead Author, Trenberth said of climate models on Nature’s weblog “None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate”. Another lead author Renwik noted “half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well” and in October 2007 Science Magazine Gerard Roe, an associate professor of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington-Seattle talking about climate models noted “Small uncertainties in the physical processes are amplified into large uncertainties in the climate response, and there is nothing we can do about that. We’re pretty much there. Current modeling is about as good as it gets”
Also see http://downloads.heartland.org/20861.pdf
November 6th, 2007 at 10:44 amComment by jdNH — November 6, 2007 @ 10:44 am
From your link:
“The survey was conducted by American Viewpoint of Alexandria, Virginia from September 23 to October 3, 1997. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 4.7 percent. Forty-eight states have official climatologists. Of the 48, American Viewpoints was able to contact and survey 36 of them. Ninety-two percent of the climatologists said they did not receive direct funding from state or federal environmental protection agencies, and 86 percent said they did not receive direct funding from business or industry.”
You really point to a poll of 36 governmentally appointed climatologists in 1997 as evidence? Are you joking?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:09 amAlso see http://downloads.heartland.org/20861.pdf
Comment by jdNH — November 6, 2007 @ 10:44 am
From Wiki regarding the Heartland Institute:
“Global warming
The Institute was a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition which questioned the impact of global warming and felt that climate control policies hurt consumers. The Board of Directors for the Heartland Institute includes Thomas Walton, an executive of General Motors Corporation. [1]
Funding
The Heartland Institute receives donations from over 1400 individuals. No corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget according to brochures from the company. [2]
According to Exxon Secrets.org , The Heartland Institute has received annual donations from Exxon-Mobil in amounts ranging from $100,000 to $200,000. [3]
Tobacco
The Institute has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy. The Institute received over $150,000 from the Phillip Morris over three years from 1997 to 1999 [4].”
But let’s even ignore that. According the the Heartland Institute, 56% of climatologists polled believe that humans are responsible for climate change. That was in 2003.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:19 amjdNH,
Though you have a name that suspiciously implies that you are a lawyer from New Hampshire who claims to be a climatologist, I will help you form your argument. Try this for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Existence_of_a_scientific_consensus
Usually a good place to start even if the site is generally suspect. There’s a little bit of both sides of the debate in the section I pointed you to. Maybe you can pick up some new talking points.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:36 amI don’t need talking points. I give talks once a week to great applause. I beat the pants off of a GWer in a recent debate.
I taught climatology for 8 years. I have a PhD in Meteorology. You have a degree in what ?
Your sources are Wikipedia, mine are the great cloimatologists of the 20th century. You lose.
November 6th, 2007 at 12:30 pmYour sources are Wikipedia, mine are the great cloimatologists of the 20th century. You lose.
Comment by jdNH — November 6, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
Your sources are a right-wing think tank and a 10 year old poll of a small fraction of scientists…all American and government appointed…you’re pathetic. By the way, can you provide me a link to your CV?
November 6th, 2007 at 12:44 pmAgain you are wrong. The state climatologist are not government appointed climatologists but State University appointed – often faculty members and many of them well published in peer review.
Yes most people in the field trust them far above the modelers who have benefited from lucrative grants to show global warming is real.
And you proved my point to a tee, when you don’t have the scientific facts or understanding to back you up you attack the opponent. Al Gore would be proud of you.
And oh by the way, Exxon Mobil donated $100,000,000 to Stanford for Erlich, Schneider, Somervile and other alarmists make their home. I guess that makes them and everything they say no longer trustworthy.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:16 pmComment by jdNH — November 6, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
You have yet to cite any facts, you merely link to outdated and/or questionable data that does nothing to debate the actual science in question. You claim that “modelers” can’t be trusted and then cite meteorological dissent to back your assertion that there is no consensus. What is it that meteorologists do if not generate probable future weather conditions?
From both your tone and your unwillingness to bring any actual evidence to the debate (which someone of your “great” climatological experience should no doubt possess) I can only assume that you offer nothing in the way of enlightening conversation.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pmFroma state climatologist, presumably not one of the one’s surveyed in 1997:
http://www.stateclimate.org/news/default.php?event_id=158&state_id=®ion=
November 6th, 2007 at 1:51 pmOh, and please don’t consider it an attack on your person when I ask for your CV. If you do have genuine knowledge of climatology, perhaps you have written a paper or two that I could read.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:57 pm