Guess who just won the Nobel Peace Prize?

[Oh, Why Not?]

Yes Harry, I agree with you. "My" scientists are pure and only deal with vituous facts. The others are dubious if not corrupt.

Actually I have to apologise. I just realized I'm in the wrong thread. I thought we were talking about the Kindle.

"Oh well . . ."

[RWood]

Harry: Surely you remember from your early school days when they said we were coming out of a mini ice age? Remember the stories about roasting oxen on the river near the London Bridge? It has flowed free for many years before global warming alarms were sounded.

They speak of it now as if it was a new religion where any facts that do not support the orthodoxy are deemed trumped up and dismissed out of hand. One woman has even called for the dis-accrediation of all weather forecasters that do not subscribe to the one true religion.

[NatCh]

The point is that we don't have all the facts yet, may of the "facts" we do have are under scientific contention, and it takes time to sort all the wheat from the chaff, and grow more wheat. I'm willing to entertain the idea that we may be affecting our environment, and to take modest steps against that possibility, but at this stage I tend to stop listening when I hear claims of absolute knowledge on the matter — there's too much we're still finding out for me to give those much credence. And I'm certainly not prepared to dismantle our civilization (as many of the more rabid Pro-GW sorts would like) based on what we know presently — that seems like a pretty ... ill-considered move to me at this juncture.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Let's not discuss "climate change".

Hey, you posted it!

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Hey, you posted it!

I honestly regret having done so. It was stupid of me.

[NatCh]

Well, you put it in the Lounge, which is the proper spot for it.

[BossHogg]

Originally Posted by Oh, Why Not?

It's the new 'Belief" system for the 21st century. Let's choose sides.

In the '60's it was the hippie/social rebellion crisis.
In the '70's it was the global cooling crisis.
In the '80's it was the stock market/junk bond crisis.
In the '90's it was the S&L crisis or was it the hole in the ozone?

Sigh . . .

Let's not forget Gore ducking debates:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/docs/20070316_monckton.html

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1169131766.shtml

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Actually, in the 70s it was the global pollution crisis, most alarmingly represented by Soylent Green.

[mores]

maybe i am just too intelligent for this planet, but the reason why i like gore's film is because it makes one think a bit about our planet and what man has done to it.

sure, the movie uses effects, does mislead, does exaggerate, but it is supposed to be both entertaining and provocative at the same time.

so even if you take everything with a grain of salt, if you are intellectually superior, like i am, you will try to do your bit to not kill our planet.



"an inconvenient truth" inspired me more than "bowling for columbine" or "supersize me" or "fahrenheit 911".

[emkay]

I'm pretty amazed at some of the comments in here...

I find it baffling when otherwise rational people suddenly decide that they have more expertise on the issue of climate change than the world's top climate experts.
Maybe it's understandable when you look closely at the amount of misinformation and FUD spread on the topic, particularly in the American media.

Yes, the climate has always been changing on Earth. But the rate of change since industrialisation is completely anomolous in comparison to previous fluctuations. A *massive* majority of *credible* climate scientists (i.e. those publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals) believe that this change is due to human activity.

Gore's film was found by the British judge to have some factual innacuracies, but the judge found the film to be "broadly accurate", and said

many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported "by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]."

link

The action against the film was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate.

Personally I've heard enough of the "we don't have all the facts" arguments - from what we know now, the risk is so serious that we have to take out an insurance policy on what might happen. The "wait till we have more evidence" approach just happens to suit those who make their money from fossil fuels, or have lifestyles completely dependent upon them.

If you don't want to adjust your lifestyle for the sake of my and your children's quality of life, be honest about it. Don't ramble on pretending to be an expert on climate change, or quote some press release from an Exxon Mobil funded interest group.

/rant.

And now, I'll take a deep breath, and go back to my book

[HarryT]

Well said, emkay.

[HappyMartin]

That says it for me emkay.

[Oh, Why Not?]

Gosh. We're still at it? A perspective:

The Peace Prize is a political prize, not a scientific prize. This prize committee made a political selection from their collective political opinion. That is what they are supposed to do. And did. Good!

That does not raise it above debate. Debate is good for this matter. Skepticism is booth good and important.

Now for another perspective:

Hows about them Kindles?

[yvanleterrible]

This debate is rather sad.
Since environmental concerns have been made issues on political platforms, they are being made targets to all the same smut campains, released greed instincts and corruption syphons that politics thrive on.
Yes there are basic and major errors in the predictions made by this movie but still they are based on straight observations which can't be denied. It is a source of information, an attention grabber for those not yet sensitized, a debate provoker. Today's Earth dweller is bombarded with worthless media induced trash to a point of desensitization. Wouldn't you agree that percussive extrapolations grabs the attention necessary to bring new faith to the subject?
This political carousel must be stopped. I agree that politics are the most powerful ways of moving things but also the slowest. Not necessarily what is needed at this point. A social example is much faster, if something's 'in' the populace is much more likely to act on.

This whole green movement is a conscience about facts that must remain personal at first, that must spur gestures suggested by a larger goal. It is to be imitated and then evolved. We are moving and recycling and asking to get the 'green' services if they are not available. That's laudable. The trick is to not stop and then find something else to contribute. That's what doing good is all about.

By now everybody knows what's good and what's not for this environment. It is a personnal choice to act on. The Earth life support layer will maintain itself only when the balance which has been disturbed has been reestablished, we all know that. But still there are those who find any reason not to act and blame anything but themselves. We all live, and can, with a high degree of tolerance toward guilt. Shame is, there are those who have none, no guilt whatsoever, thus no purpose but to themselves in their short presence here on to this world.

Sad debate between those who want their kids and further offspring to survive and those who couldn't care less. Its always been... will it change?

There is this guy here who's written a book about people saying they are green at heart and who've never done a thing about it. Does anybody recognize themselves? I do! Myself and others around! I still have that big delivery truck, although I don't use it for anything but cargo hauling. I'd love to have a better solution and there could be. As one who wants good my task now is to ask loudly for changes, for solutions, to ask others to ask with me, and not stop. It's the only way for a tiny individual to set motion to a big wheel. Mr Gore has done just that and used what mediatic power leftover from his hasbeen political life to help things. That's why he's been thanked.
It shouldn't stop there...

Just my small, corny sounding voice. I want to use something else than oil!

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by emkay

I'm pretty amazed at some of the comments in here...

I find it baffling when otherwise rational people suddenly decide that they have more expertise on the issue of climate change than the world's top climate experts.

I heartily agree -- the world today has ridiculous numbers of people speaking with authority on matters they know less than nothing about! Just because some triple-D bottle blonde gets paid a gazillion dollars for making some movie, doesn't mean I should listen to her opinions on the latest perceived social issue. She may well be an expert in the area, but unless she demonstrates that expertise, in my book she's just another celeb mouthing off about stuff of which she knows not.

So, speaking as the guy who weighed in above with the position that we don't yet know enough to be speaking authoritatively, let me ask -- and I really do mean this as a sincere request, not a dig or cheap shot -- let me ask what expertise you bring to the discussion? I like to know that sort of thing when I'm considering folks comments, you see, and since this is an area where I admit a fairly complete ignorance, I have no personal expertise within which to consider your comments.