Nobel Peace Prize just lost 90% of its credibility

[FatBastard]

Yup, that's smear al right .
As long as you and everybody else keeps using funny words like air, water, pollution and environment Gore's work is done.

{ now I know you don't want this thread to spiral downwards with dumb ass quotes of politicians , say ... can you think of politicians opposing to Gore that might be known for their incredibly stupid way with words ? }

[ND66]

can you think of politicians opposing to Gore that might be known for their incredibly stupid way with words ?

Yes, FB.

Way too many.

I’m not trying to go “political” here.
I just think from all those people trying to make the world aware of the global warming, Al Gore is the one to catch the limelight?

.

[RC Agent]

You're pretty much batting 1000 today.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/candidate.asp

Oh man...

[Wulfman]

I'd be careful with all this "twisting facts"-business. afaik he has been in court on the topic quite a few times, but basically no fundamental problems (with then current knowledge) came up, iirc.

mfg
wulfman

[FatBastard]

Yes, FB.

Way too many.

I’m not trying to go “political” here.
I just think from all those people trying to make the world aware of the global warming, Al Gore is the one to catch the limelight?

.

He is always the first one to acknowledge the scientists.
you know something ... I'm with you ... give me another name.
Name another person who has done more to raise the awareness more then he did.
It seems to me everybody thought there's something going on, but they assumed the shit would hit the fan long after they and their children are gone. His in your face approach proved its value.
plus, I always thought tipper is one hot woman. imagine how happy this prize makes her... now don't you feel better?

[ND66]

He is always the first one to acknowledge the scientists.
you know something ... I'm with you ... give me another name.
Name another person who has done more to raise the awareness more then he did.

OK, Believe it or not, for me, personally, the person to make me more aware of what’s going on is (don’t laugh, I’m serious) Brian Ellis!

As funny as it sounds, I’m honest.

There is a whole world of the devil incarnates out there, doing studies, writing articles and going to jail for believing that this is the only way to make a difference.



And Al Gore…… I’m thankful that Mr. Bill Clinton was in a good shape to finish his term so Al didn’t have to step up.


Believe me, I don’t want to argue this on the political level, it’s just about a person that couldn’t surface on a political arena anymore and caught a ride on a rising tide going different direction….. .




Disclaimer:

I may or may not be right, but it’s how I feel about it. Anyone else being as exposed to the media of the whole world as Al Gore was, could accomplish the same, if not more.

And the Noble prize should go to the network of people, like Greenpeace, fighting world politics to make a real change. Not an individual packet. It’s global, not a single person fight.

.

[rylan]

Ok, I just did some Googling and its quite easy to find lists of the false "facts" that Al Gore used in his movie.

Here is a site that I'm sure some people will discount... however it lists items directly from the British court findings. They ruled that schools can't show the movie to kids without pointing out the fallacies.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

A nice article for your reading leisure

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf

Here is some education

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[rylan]

Oh and I'm not blasting Al Gore for getting enviromental issues on the radar screen of lots of people... my problem is with how he went about doing it, which discredits a lot of the real work thats been done.

[Technoid]

Well, the whole Nobel Prize institution has gone whacko in the last 30 years....

[Brian Ellis]

OK, Believe it or not, for me, personally, the person to make me more aware of what’s going on is (don’t laugh, I’m serious) Brian Ellis!

As funny as it sounds, I’m honest.

There is a whole world of the devil incarnates out there, doing studies, writing articles and going to jail for believing that this is the only way to make a difference.

Well, thanks for that! Haven't been to jail, though, because I'm neither politician nor activist.

----------------------

Someone just asked to name one untruth in Gore's film. OK, here's one: the Thames flood barrier which he claims was built to protect London from rising sea levels. That is utter BS.

1953. The worst storm surge of the last century hit the East Coast on the 31st January/1st February, 1953. It breached flood defences, knocked out tide guages between the Wash and Southend and devastated Canvey Island in the Thames Estuary. On Canvey alone, 58 people died and 10,000 had to be evacuated. The flooding extended into Docklands but Central London was spared.

1953 was a wake-up call for the government. Immediately a committee was set up to examine the risk to the capital. Thirteen months on, the Waverley Committee issued its report recommending that a storm surge barrier be built across the Thames.

Link

I remember that storm which flooded quite large parts of the E. Coast of England. It was caused by a freak combination of very low atmospheric pressure, spring tides and a build-up of water in front of an Easterly gale. The Thames estuary and the Wash were badly hit because of the venturi effect of the shape of the estuary.

Al Gore was a 6-year old kid when the decision to build a barrier was taken and even he must admit that he had never heard of global warming at that tender age. To pretend that it was built to protect London from the effect of rising sea levels due to climate change can be qualified as a downright lie to further his political agenda. It was built to protect London from storm surges. That it may help to protect London from rising sea levels as well is purely coincidental. As Gore claims the possibility of 7 m sea level change (as against <1 m of the IPCC), the barrier would actually provide no protection if that were come to pass, in any case.

Cards on the table: Gore is, IMO, a dangerous political animal, an extremist who will resort to anything to make his agenda heard. He is not an environmentalist: he will quote environmentalists if it suits his arguments and this gives him an aura of credibility, but this aura disappears as soon as it is examined. I laughed last night when the BBC interviewed one of the UK environmental IPCC experts, who was asked about the prize and Gore's role. He was obviously very uncomfortable and was bending over backwards to be diplomatic and positive but clearly felt that the IPCC was downgraded by the association with Gore as co-laureate, according to both change of tone and body language.

I don't wish to turn this into a political debate or interfere with US political thinking (not that my view matters) but, if Gore were to run for President, I would hope that there would be a strong "Anyone but Gore" lobby at the primaries. I fear that if he were named the Democrat candidate, he would probably win as he is riding a tide of popularity, boosted by this prize, and he would drive the already-faltering US economy into the ground with an unrealistic programme that even Congress would not be able to restrain. And I say this as a confirmed theoretical anti-Republican.

[FatBastard]

Ok, I just did some Googling and its quite easy to find lists of the false "facts" that Al Gore used in his movie.

Here is a site that I'm sure some people will discount... however it lists items directly from the British court findings. They ruled that schools can't show the movie to kids without pointing out the fallacies.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

A nice article for your reading leisure

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf

Here is some education
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

"Our Product is Doubt".
The first "junk science .." thing is total crap. it debunks "facts" which are not in the film;
"'greenhouse' the same as 'global warming'" -- that's priceless, the Right knows exactly which air headed sound bites their public needs to hear.
in addition it does acknowledge that CO2 levels are on the rise, but it says its not enough to make a change. if you've seen the film ( or read some impartial science as I did) you'd realize that a small rise is all it takes. (Water freeze at 0 degrees centigrade, at 1 degree, believe it or not it melts).


the court thing is also ridiculous. especially since it absolutely meats the goals of the opposing side. It makes global warming a political issue. it gets the courts to rule on science. brilliant and sad, but hardly unexpected. I have no idea why "The Government's expert had to accept blah blah blah ... " is something you seriously quote to support your claims.


Like I wrote in a previous post.
For each research claiming we are all safe for hundreds of years (tell it to the people of new Orleans) there are plenty other which claim differently. Do you feel lucky? are you willing to risk it?

But none of that matters any more
Gore's objectors can cluck cluck cluck till their throats gets red, the world's thinking is already changed.
All the large American auto makers decided to fight this global warming monster, by resorting to their classic methods; politics. but Toyota and some other companies thought differently. guess who proved the smartest?
The EU's Euro 5 and Euro 6 emission standards are a giant step in the right direction, I can only hope other places would follow this example
the UK and Canada are moving to Energy saving Light Bulbs only, mainly fluorescent .
and so on..

[Lizzard[MPE]]

I think that fact of the matter is he is responsible for "people talking"

I don't care who Al Gore is..
I don't care if hes a republican or a democrat..
I don't care that "he invented the internet"..
I am a republican..
I voted for Bush...
yes i know shocking, but anyway


If it wasn't for Al Gores "An Inconvenient Truth" half the world wouldn't give a shit about our environment.

And now there is a massive freaking out paranoid feeling about whats going on in our environment, and I'm pretty sure that's a good thing.

If that movie pushes us to go green.. than why not. I'm not really concerned with the tiny white lies that you guys speak of came out of the movie.. all that matters is people care now.

Who here in the future wouldn't enjoy not having to go fill your vehicle up with gasoline? Or to be able to walk in L.A. without gagging for clean air. It would be nice eh

Oi!

[Lizzard[MPE]]

Ok, I just did some Googling and its quite easy to find lists of the false "facts" that Al Gore used in his movie.

Here is a site that I'm sure some people will discount... however it lists items directly from the British court findings. They ruled that schools can't show the movie to kids without pointing out the fallacies.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

You gotta be kidding me... tell me why the governments expert was forced to concede that it wasn't correct, not that hey this guy said it wasn't true so it must not be.

[Dr Mordrid]

He's not and as Brian said so much of the film is so exaggerated or just plain fake it's giving real GW's fits in the PR battle.

[Lizzard[MPE]]

Like I wrote in a previous post.
For each research claiming we are all safe for hundreds of years (tell it to the people of new Orleans) there are plenty other which claim differently. Do you feel lucky? are you willing to risk it?

I'm pretty sure the fact that New Orleans got so ****ed up is because its levee system was never built to withstand strong hurricanes. It was a fact for years that it needed to be dealt with and no one did anything.

I'm also pretty sure the reason they were hit so hard was because of what took place 50 years ago in the Bayou wetlands to divert the Mississippi River, depleting the wetlands, the city became increasingly vulnerable to the winds and rising waters of hurricanes... with the rapid erosion of the wetlands there was not much they could do.

I believe that the Katrina thing was defiantly man-made stupidity not environmental global warming. The wetlands were a hurricane buffer to the cities and the inland