Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

Al Gore film

Recommended Posts

Al Gore and the IPCC :D Nobel Peace Prize.

Is it April 1st? Is this a joke and I'm too dim to see it?

Tell me it isn't true.

Please.

If it is true, then I absolutely give up on the World, I really do.

I am almost lost for words.

Shameful, absolutely shameful.

And that's putting it mildly (no pun intended ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al Gore and the IPCC :D Nobel Peace Prize.

Is it April 1st? Is this a joke and I'm too dim to see it?

Tell me it isn't true.

Please.

If it is true, then I absolutely give up on the World, I really do.

I am almost lost for words.

Shameful, absolutely shameful.

Do you know how exhaustive the selection process is for the awarding of the Nobel Peace prize? Are you belittling all the noble folk that have been awarded this in the past (as if you question it's validity then surely that taints every other time they have awarded the prize) you diss Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa et al or are you just smarting because the 'smarts' of this planet are diametrically opposed to your 'opinions'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you belittling all the noble folk that have been awarded this in the past (as if you question it's validity then surely that taints every other time they have awarded the prize) you diss Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa et al or are you just smarting because the 'smarts' of this planet are diametrically opposed to your 'opinions'?

I don't believe I mentioned Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa or any other recipients of the prize.

I do believe that your comment says more about you than it does about me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe I mentioned Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa or any other recipients of the prize.

I do believe that your comment says more about you than it does about me.

you see now I'm struggling to understand you! I'm a bear (or Wolf) of very little brains you see.

Surely if you Diss' a recipient of a Nobel Peace prize then you must be casting doubts on their selection process (and the folk who do the research) and if you find the process 'flawed' then what of all the other recipients over the years?.

Why should they suddenly 'boob' now? (Don't forget it is a shared accolade with the IPCC being awarded it on the same merits or is that organisation to be doubted too?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al Gore and the IPCC :) Nobel Peace Prize.

Is it April 1st? Is this a joke and I'm too dim to see it?

Tell me it isn't true.

Please.

If it is true, then I absolutely give up on the World, I really do.

I am almost lost for words.

Shameful, absolutely shameful.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/l...nouncement.html

Noggin,

It would be shameful if the foundation was in breach of its remit, but your protests might as well be those of a thug on a friday night refused access to a bar. Just as the publican is within his rights to decide who he allows on his premises, so is the Nobel Committee at liberty to decide, within the terms of Nobel's own bequest, who receives the various prizes.

You might care to watch the attached link, LISTEN CAREFULLY, and then comment again.

The fact that you continue to resist climate change is a by the by. You are in an increasing minority, and you have to accept that you MIGHT be wrong, particulary IF you listen to their reasoning. As a few of us on here have said many times over, the stakes here are high; climate change, if it is ongoing, is not like a radiator thermostat that we will conveniently be able to turn off when it gets a bit too warm. For that reason alone prudence is sensible, and it is in that light that the Nobel Committee have determined their judgment.

I do wish you would wake up to the possibility that you might just be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you see now I'm struggling to understand you! I'm a bear (or Wolf) of very little brains you see.

Surely if you Diss' a recipient of a Nobel Peace prize then you must be casting doubts on their selection process (and the folk who do the research) and if you find the process 'flawed' then what of all the other recipients over the years?.

Why should they suddenly 'boob' now? (Don't forget it is a shared accolade with the IPCC being awarded it on the same merits or is that organisation to be doubted too?).

I am certainly not dissing worthy (IMHO) recipients like Nelson Mandela or Mother Teresa! I think it's a little unfair to say that in dissing Al et al I am also dissing these worthy and good people....I was a bit upset about your comment, actually. :shok: Anyway, I am sure that you are a cuddly old wolf really and didn't mean to cause any upset to anybody! ;):cold:

Now, and absolutely not apropos previous awards of the prize:

AGW......

Opposition is required (as in government) to ensure that extreme ideas and policies get tempered and this is why I am so glad that more and more scientists and climatologists are speaking out about their doubts and second thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<a href="http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/announcement.html" target="_blank">http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/l...nouncement.html</a>

Noggin,

It would be shameful if the foundation was in breach of its remit, but your protests might as well be those of a thug on a friday night refused access to a bar. Just as the publican is within his rights to decide who he allows on his premises, so is the Nobel Committee at liberty to decide, within the terms of Nobel's own bequest, who receives the various prizes.

You might care to watch the attached link, LISTEN CAREFULLY, and then comment again.

The fact that you continue to resist climate change is a by the by. You are in an increasing minority, and you have to accept that you MIGHT be wrong, particulary IF you listen to their reasoning. As a few of us on here have said many times over, the stakes here are high; climate change, if it is ongoing, is not like a radiator thermostat that we will conveniently be able to turn off when it gets a bit too warm. For that reason alone prudence is sensible, and it is in that light that the Nobel Committee have determined their judgment.

I do wish you would wake up to the possibility that you might just be wrong.

Oh, flippin' heck Stratos! Of course the foundation can make the awards to whomsoever they wish. I just happen to think they are wrong to award this prize to Al et al. It's my opinion and I am entitled to it.

You say that I continue to resist climate change. A rather unfair comment I feel. What I have said all along is that I consider that the temperature variations are natural as opposed to man-made. I have also said that we should respect our planet and it's resources. I have said these things ad nauseum, but might as well save my breath as far as some people (such as yourself ;):shok: are concerned.

Also, until recently, my signature contained the comment "I might be wrong, but then again, I might be right". I only deleted it recently as I thought it took up too much space. However, I am going to put it back in. Just for you! :cold:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm baffled why Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I can not believe I am saying this but I would have thought Paisley and Adams/McGuinness were more deserving. Who would have those two (or three) have got together around a table, 10 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely if you Diss' a recipient of a Nobel Peace prize then you must be casting doubts on their selection process (and the folk who do the research) and if you find the process 'flawed' then what of all the other recipients over the years?.

Why should they suddenly 'boob' now? (Don't forget it is a shared accolade with the IPCC being awarded it on the same merits or is that organisation to be doubted too?).

What about Yasser Arafat? See I'm not looking at it from a pro or anti global warming view but I do question why he co-won it. For me, the most controversial choice since Yasser Arafat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it's fair to say that the TAR gave a range of projections between 1.4 and 5.8C, which would give a mid-range value of 3.6C. The 4AR gave a similar range from 1.8 to 4.0C, giving a mid-range value of 2.9C. Even with appropriate rounding of these figures (to 3.5 and 3.0C respectively) there is a reduction in the mid-range (so arguably "most likely") projection.

From The Telegraph last December, "The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../nclimate10.xml

There is a comment in the 4AR SPM that estimates of sea level rise in the 20th century are around 17cm - perhaps there is some confusion over the claim, since the Telegraph states 17 inches, not 17 centimetres. 17" equates to about 43 cm, which is the upper limit of the B2 scenario. I shall have to check the TAR to compare these estimates.

The IPCC no longer make specific reference to the MBH1999 graph - it is incorporated into the group of past climate reconstructions, but it is neither specifically identified in the text, nor printed by itself in numerous different places in the report. Although you could argue that it is "pointing in the same way" as the other reconstructions, it is one of the most distinctively extreme reconstructions. It is interesting that a graph featured so prominently in the last assessment report should be so buried in the most recent.

CB

Just a point of order for all protaganists of both sides of the arguement - if you're going to use TLAs ( Three letter acronyms) please let us non-weather scientists know what they mean. I mean before you know it you'll be using FLAs and us mere mortals won't have a clue as to what you're saying.

Kind regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that you continue to resist climate change is a by the by. You are in an increasing minority,

Actually I suggest that the momentum is going away from climate change by anthropogenic means. The science is increasingly being called into question, organisations like the BBC are no longer allowed to get away with un-thinking days devoted to it, and I notice much cynicism from youngsters. I was in a class of 14 year olds the other day and I reckon half the class dismissed AGW and they were quite well informed as to why, another quarter were agnostic (an appropriate word as this strikes me as being about belief systems) and perhaps a quarter thought it plausible. Some of the children had watched the Ch 4 demolition of the Gore film.

Just to add one note of controversy here: Mother Teresa is not the absolute saint in some people's eyes (especially in India) that is assumed willy nilly in some parts of the west. I'll say no more on that.

By the way SF, have you seen Gore's film?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks

And you were right, I'm still not convinced of the justification.

Mr Data,

We are dealing with Norwegians here and if the bunch that decide the awarding of prizes donated by a bloke that made millions out of dynamite are anything like the bunch of Norwegians I know ( and greatly love) then ........ :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, flippin' heck Stratos! Of course the foundation can make the awards to whomsoever they wish. I just happen to think they are wrong to award this prize to Al et al. It's my opinion and I am entitled to it.

You say that I continue to resist climate change. A rather unfair comment I feel. What I have said all along is that I consider that the temperature variations are natural as opposed to man-made. I have also said that we should respect our planet and it's resources. I have said these things ad nauseum, but might as well save my breath as far as some people (such as yourself :lol: :rofl: are concerned.

Also, until recently, my signature contained the comment "I might be wrong, but then again, I might be right". I only deleted it recently as I thought it took up too much space. However, I am going to put it back in. Just for you! :)

You're entitled to your opinion, but reference your complaint elsewhere about not being taken seriously, you might earn a few points by sharing your reasoning occasionally. I might learn something, and so might you.

Did you bother to listen to the Nobel announcement and their reasoning. Ironically their rationale is not a million miles from your position of environmental prudence.

...

By the way SF, have you seen Gore's film?

Nope

Out of interest, do 14 year olds have the vote? Are they allowed legally to parent children? Can they make decisions to purchase alcohol or cigarettes?

Your average 14 y.o. is far more interested, and rightly so, in music, boyfriends / girlfriends, Hello magazine, computer games and a million other things before climate change. I don't think that line of reasoning adds any weight whatsoever to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point at hand re Al Gore is not whether AGW is happening or not. The point is the man is a complete bloody hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches.

As for the previous Nobel Prize Winners, I agree with WiB that Mother Teresa was certainly no saint (see Christopher Hitchens on that one), Nelson Mandela used to be a terrorist, and Yassir Arafat was still a terrorist at the time of his award. It's all a bit of joke.

You should see the Nobel Laureates for Economics. Almost always, they are awarded to free marketeers who manage to concoct the most mathematically sophisticated model together which has absolutely no attachment to reality.

Never take the Nobel Prizes seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on topic.

This has been billed on here and in the press as a one man lorry driver fighting for fairness in schools.

It's nothing of the sort.

He's a politically motivated indervidual belonging to a group called the New party which is an anti environmental lobby with a global warming denial agenda.

The group has links to Monckton and the US backed science and public policy institute which has the likes of soon etc. The Money paying for the court case has come completely from US republicans and oil magantes.

The Group is also now trying to get the global warming swindle film shown in schools, after admitting that it "got a few things incorrect".

My the way I have 2 children in school and have no problem with this getting shown. The science and uncertainties should be discussed afterwards by a competent teacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A useful commentary on Gore's film: mostly exaggeration and oversimplification with a measure of error/dishonesty.

It would have been interesting to see what the High Court would have made of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'.

Regards

ACBAG_NS.doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...