Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Outside the Beltway

Image in CC0 Public Domain

Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

James Joyner

October 12, 2007

Comments

Former Vice President Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and lay the foundations for counteracting it. Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth,” a documentary on global warming, won an Academy Award this year and he had been widely expected to win the prize. “His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change,” the citation said. “He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.” It cited Gore’s awareness at an early stage “of the climatic challenges the world is facing.

The committee cited the Panel on Climate Change for two decades of scientific reports that have “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.” Members of the panel, a network of 2,000 scientists, were surprised that it was chosen to share the honor with Gore, a spokeswoman said. “We would have been happy even if he had received it alone because it is a recognition of the importance of this issue,” spokeswoman Carola Traverso Saibante said.

This continues the trend of the Peace Prize being awarded, not for achievements in spreading peace, but to highlight the Committee’s political agenda.

Climate change has moved high on the international agenda this year. The U.N. climate panel has been releasing reports, talks on a replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate are set to resume and on Europe’s northern fringe, where the awards committee works, there is growing concern about the melting Arctic.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming, “may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.”

Anticipating the rather obvious question:

Jan Egeland, a Norwegian peace mediator and former U.N. undersecretary for humanitarian affairs, also called climate change more than an environmental issue. “It is a question of war and peace,” said Egeland, now director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo. “We’re already seeing the first climate wars, in the Sahel belt of Africa.” He said nomads and herders are in conflict with farmers because the changing climate has brought drought and a shortage of fertile lands.

This strikes me as, shall we say, a stretch.

UPDATE: To clarify a bit, I would argue that said links are tenuous and speculative, at best. And I’m not a global warming denialist; I just think the long term projections on such matters are meaningless owing to basic chaos theory.

More to the point, though, the peace angle has never been Al Gore’s primary agenda vis-a-vis global warming. Moreover, despite being the leading evangelist for measures to prevent/reverse global warming, nothing he’s done to date has actually yielded more peace.

94 responses to “Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize”

Tano

October 12, 2007 at 7:04 am

I don’t think it is such a stretch. The Nobel has long been awarded not only to those who explicitly hammer out peace agreements, but also to those who work to establish conditions in which peace fluorishes, or to counteract conditions in which conflicts fester.

The dislocations looming with global warming may well be a massive source of conflict amongst societies that will no longer be well adapted to the conditions they find themselves in.
Boyd

October 12, 2007 at 7:49 am

Speculation vs. results, Tano. That’s why James hits the nail on the head by describing this as an award used to “highlight the Committee’s political agenda.”

Tell me again what peace Gore has fomented?
Erol

October 12, 2007 at 8:15 am

Al Gore, congratulations on winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Now it is time to announce your wish to become America’s president, take your seat in the White House, and be the leader we have all been waiting for to move beyond the corrupt system of Empire and towards Earth community. Kudos to the Nobel Committee for realizing that sustainability is peace.
Tim Lambert

October 12, 2007 at 8:52 am

So you don’t think that they should have awarded the Peace Prize to Norman Borlaug?
Michael

October 12, 2007 at 9:26 am

Tell me again what peace Gore has fomented?

Well he’s not running for US President again, that’s worth the $1.5M right there isn’t it?

I just think the long term projections on such matters are meaningless owing to basic chaos theory.

There is a lot of chaos involved in weather systems, but I think you overestimate the amount of chaotic variables in global warming. We know the amount of energy we get from the Sun, we know the absorption rate of CO2, we know the amount of additional CO2 being released by burning fossil fuels, we know the CO2 absorption potential of the oceans, etc. There isn’t really a whole lot of different forces at work here.
Steve Plunk

October 12, 2007 at 10:39 am

Yawn.

History will reveal the folly of his writings and his movie. If Arafat can win it I guess he can too. Where do I send my application?
Hal

October 12, 2007 at 10:51 am

It’s their political agenda, so who cares? Last time I checked, they weren’t some governmental agency or whatever. So, like Fox news, they choose to do what their political agenda dictates. Big whoop.

I just think the long term projections on such matters are meaningless owing to basic chaos theory.

Um, do you actually know anything about basic chaos theory other than the Disney intro by Goldblum’s character in Jurassic park?

Just wondering.
Jim Henley

October 12, 2007 at 11:10 am

Now we’re going to have to listen to chants of “USA! USA!” all day from chauvinistic right wing bloggers and pundits bragging that an American has won yet another prestigious award.

What???
G.A.Phillips

October 12, 2007 at 11:25 am

Liberals giving awards to liberals, yawn.
G.A.Phillips

October 12, 2007 at 11:31 am

Liberals giving awards to liberals for being liberal, yawn.
Jim Henley

October 12, 2007 at 11:35 am

Liberal liberals giving liberal awards to liberal liberals for liberally being liberal liberals, liberal yawn. Liberal!
Jim Henley

October 12, 2007 at 11:39 am

Libliberalelals givliberingal libaweralards to libliberalelals for beliberingal libliberalelal, libyawneral.
Hal

October 12, 2007 at 11:39 am

Conservatives yawning while world class liberal organizations give awards to world class liberals for doing world class things.

What a surprise. I guess we’ll have to wait for Fox news to give their world class awards to Ann “Jews? What Jews?” Coulter for her contributions to religious integration. Or maybe the AEI can give the “Gotterdammerung Now!” award for the best warmongering over Iran.

Or the New Republic can give out the covetted “Furry Palm” lifelong achievement award in wanking and finding yet another way of labeling liberals as Nazis.

Seriously, yawn all ya like. But it’s news and they have a hell of a lot more clout and class than anything y’all have on the “right”.

Besides, I love it purely for how it really sticks in your collective craws.
SavageView

October 12, 2007 at 11:55 am

Gore derangement syndrome! Gore derangement syndrome!

As if Joyner has the capacity or training to buttress the claim that the links are “tenuous”. Hey, purfessor, we went into Iraq with far less evidence in part because of chicken littles like yourself warning us about type II error. Gawd.
Jim Henley

October 12, 2007 at 11:57 am

LgIiBvEiRnAgL LaIwBaErRdAsL fLoIr BbEeRiAnLg.
Hal

October 12, 2007 at 12:00 pm

LgIiBvEiRnAgL LaIwBaErRdAsL fLoIr BbEeRiAnLg.

<hehe>
Triumph

October 12, 2007 at 12:24 pm

This continues the trend of the Peace Prize being awarded, not for achievements in spreading peace,

James,

I am not sure how you say this is a “trend.” Sure, last year’s winner was a banker (who was, by the way, lauded by OTB–not you, but another contributor although you didn’t weigh in on the conversation).

But, basically everyone who had won it from 1974-2005 was involved in “peacemaking” to a certain degree.
Wayne

October 12, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Michael

You got to be kidding. Many of the so call known numbers are like the known age of earth. They keep changing. Also how much any one of those variables contributes to global warming has been guesses.

There are many variables that you didn’t mention. Including the increase of plant growth, which uses photosynthesis to convert CO2, ocean currents, many other global warming or cooling chemicles, volcanic activitie amd many others. There is the change in thermodanimics of the atmosphere when the atmosphere changes temparuture which is not very well understood at this time. Most of the science out there on this is speculative.

To say it is a simple as the sun’s output and the CO2 absorbtion rates and production is asinine.
Hal

October 12, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Most of the science out there on this is speculative.

I remember my first beer, too.
Anderson

October 12, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Congrats to JJ for using a Gore photo that didn’t make him look diabolical or, at best, like Spock’s uncle.

As opposed to the NYT and WaPo’s photos.
Michael

October 12, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Many of the so call known numbers are like the known age of earth. They keep changing.

You’re right, this year the earth is 1 year older than it was last year. Congratulations on your understanding of sequential time.

Also how much any one of those variables contributes to global warming has been guesses.

Some are estimates, like the exact amount of CO2 emitted per year, but others like the energy absorption spectrum of CO2 are very precisely known. None of them are “guesses”.

There are many variables that you didn’t mention. Including the increase of plant growth, which uses photosynthesis to convert CO2, ocean currents, many other global warming or cooling chemicles, volcanic activitie amd many others.

I’m pretty sure James wouldn’t like me to list _all_ of the known variables.

But everything you mentioned, rate of change of plant grown, other chemicals (methane, water vapor), volcanic activity, etc, are all things that are measurable and _have_ been measured and _continue_ to be measured, and the people doing that measuring are _still_ claiming an increased rate of warming due to human activities.

There is the change in thermodanimics of the atmosphere when the atmosphere changes temparuture which is not very well understood at this time.

Um, what? Please elaborate, as I find it doubtful that the laws of thermodynamics actually change depending on atmospheric conditions.

Most of the science out there on this is speculative.

I get the distinct feeling that you couldn’t pronounce most of the science out there, let alone understand it enough to call it speculative, so I’m guessing you’re just parroting what some other uninformed soul told you was “the truth”.

To say it is a simple as the sun’s output and the CO2 absorbtion rates and production is asinine.

No, it’s called generalizing, taking the major source of the energy we receive, and the major source of green house warming _that we can change_, is not an unreasonable foundation for this discussion.
Dressel

October 12, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Wayne,
you’ve got to be kidding! The age of the earth is a well known fact. Just ask that well known scientist Archbishop Ussher.

Sure, there are about a million well funded scientific papers “disputing” this claim (and [in an actually scientific way] edging our way towards an understanding of the earths’ age), but, hey, he’s bloody Archbishop James Ussher — I mean that’s gotta count for something, right? Who cares that he’s one man with religious delusions against a millon others with actual research.

And that actually makes your point. Congratulations!

P.S.: I would have included links (to wikipedia et al.), but so far the rather overzealous spam-filtering of OTB has marked any submission of mine that included even a single link as “spam”, so I’m not inclined to try again. Oh well, “Just google itâ„¢”, as they say.
Wayne

October 12, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Hal
“I remember my first beer, too.â€
You probably got sick and whimper like a pup.

Most of the climate models are base of computer models with code written by humans. Why don’t they use real models? The reason is that they can’t create such complex systems. Therefore they can’t run real test. Computer code is speculations on what might happen and are more often than not wrong.

They often try to explain why something happens. Most anyone can explain a past event with all sorts of nonsense. True science can predict results of a future event. The record of predictions of global warming scientists is pretty poor. Of course they always have an excuse.
Yes the science of CO2 retaining heat can be tested and is not speculative but how much it affects the temperatures in the atmosphere is.

Until they can test it and predict with a very high % accuracy future event, they are speculating.

If you craw out of your beer or stop smoking wacky weed, you may see that.
Michael

October 12, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Yes the science of CO2 retaining heat can be tested and is not speculative but how much it affects the temperatures in the atmosphere is.

I was right, you don’t understand it. You admit that we can know exactly how much energy is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere, but then claim that we can’t know by how much that absorption changes the temperature of the atmosphere, not realize that they are one and the same.

Why don’t they use real models? The reason is that they can’t create such complex systems.

No, that is a problem of scale, not a problem of complexity. The computer models can account for far more variables with far greater accuracy than a physical model can.

Until they can test it and predict with a very high % accuracy future event, they are speculating.

So what you’re saying is that because they don’t know if the average temperature is going to be 5 or 10 degrees warmer in 50 years, you’re unwilling to believe it will be any warmer? If a car dealer says a model gets between 15 and 20 MPG, do you assume that it will get 0?
Hal

October 12, 2007 at 3:54 pm

You probably got sick and whimper like a pup.

See, this is why I love you guys. You really do believe that sheer force of will and playground intimidation tactics will browbeat everyone you disagree with into submission.

Look dude, I worked for NCAR on the acid rain modeling in the 80’s with real chemists, climatologist using super computers (of that time) to model what was going on. I’ve listened to a lot of you yokels back then making the exact same moronic arguments about acid rain.

Don’t teach your grandmother to suck eggs. You’re simply a fool.

If you craw out of your beer or stop smoking wacky weed, you may see that.

You wingers really are a hoot! Wacky weed! It’s like listening to an old coot at a nursing home wander about in his bathrobe, shaking a golf club.
floyd

October 12, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Jim Henley,
Now I don’t care WHO you are!THAT’S FUNNY!!
floyd

October 12, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Sadly, Michael Moore will now have to wait ’til next year.
Wayne

October 12, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Michael
“You’re right, this year the earth is 1 year older than it was last year. Congratulations on your understanding of sequential time.â€

Oh yes that really tells someone the age of earth. Besides you are inaccurate. Earth would be one year older exactly one year prior. By your statement earth would be from slightly more than one year to slightly less then two years older than last year.

Are you denying that the estimate ages of earth by sceinctist have change?

Look up the definitions of guesses and estimating. They have much in common.

It is false to claim that the ones taking the measurement have a consensus on the human impact on global warming.

The laws of thermodynamics may not change but the thermodynamics of the atmosphere do change with varying temperatures and other conditions. I could go into the density of different levels of the atmosphere and surface area and volume to consider and the effects it has on the absorption and release of energy.

However I don’t think you would understand. Even the scientists who study it disagree on many of its impacts.
JohnG

October 12, 2007 at 4:19 pm

There are other things going on in the atmosphere than CO2 trapping heat. We don’t know all the things going on up there. We don’t know how all the things going on up there interact, other than guesses and computer models. This is why the predictive abilities of current models typically fail without fudging the models until the desired results come out. The thing is, as you project farther in time, little errors can become greatly magnified due to chaos theory. And we don’t even know if the things we don’t know are minor or not.
Michael

October 12, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Oh yes that really tells someone the age of earth. Besides you are inaccurate. Earth would be one year older exactly one year prior. By your statement earth would be from slightly more than one year to slightly less then two years older than last year.

I’m beginning to think my congratulations were premature.

Are you denying that the estimate ages of earth by sceinctist have change?

No, but that is a case of not having enough data. Your argument against global warming has been that the data is too complex, not that we are lacking some information needed to make predictions. In the case of history, you can’t go back and get what is already gone, so the exact age of the earth will never be known. In the case of global warming, it’s a matter of plugging numbers into equations. Sure there are lots of numbers and big equations, but it is possible to do because the information is available.

It is false to claim that the ones taking the measurement have a consensus on the human impact on global warming.

Ok, give me names of the dissenters and the evidence they have for why increased CO2 in the atmosphere will _not_ be raising temperatures.

I could go into the density of different levels of the atmosphere and surface area and volume to consider and the effects it has on the absorption and release of energy.

Oh please do, I could use a laugh today.
Hal

October 12, 2007 at 4:30 pm

My god, I wish you guys would actually read something about chaos theory rather than just spouting off what you read from Crichton. Crichton is a novelist, not a scientist and you’re getting your talking points from a novelist.

Which, I guess, is a step up from ex mining executives, which is a step up from drug abusing radio talk show hosts.

Geebus. “Chaos theory” is not a magic wand.
Jim Henley

October 12, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Jim Henley,
Now I don’t care WHO you are!THAT’S FUNNY!!

Thank you. I am just a man like other men. Only handsomer.
Jim Henley

October 12, 2007 at 4:35 pm

Most of the climate models are base of computer models with code written by humans. Why don’t they use real models? The reason is that they can’t create such complex systems.

Nah. The Tester’s just wouldn’t stick the water vapor to the air molecules when they tried it. Too bad because the paint job on the globe was damn skippy.
Wayne

October 12, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Hal
As I recall, many of the acid rain predictions have been wrong.
You are the one that started the playground intimidation tactics. Now you complain. What a typical liberal hypocrite.

I thought the wacky weed would get to you.

Michael

Computer models are use when realistic real models can’t be or when they want fast and rough estimate. Otherwise scientists prefer realistic real models since they give true and more accurate results. It is not proven until applied to the real world.

Energy rate of absorption and release by CO2 is known but energy is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere and how much it contributes to the temperatures of the earth is estimated.

“If a car dealer says a model gets between 15 and 20 MPG, do you assume that it will get 0?â€

No. However if he tells me a model get 15 to 20 and I only find one car out of a 100 that gets 15 to 20, then I will be suspicious when he claims the next model will get 60 to 70 mpg.
Hal

October 12, 2007 at 4:54 pm

As I recall, many of the acid rain predictions have been wrong.

Really? Name three. However, please note that predictions aren’t modeling. A lot of the work the ADMP group did was actually responsible for clearing up a lot of the erroneous predictions.

It’s kind of bad when you can’t distinguish between the two in your arguments.

If you had brain one, you would have said something like “a lot of the conclusions drawn from acid rain modeling were wrong”, but then you’d have to actually understand what conclusions actually were drawn and how things worked out in practice.

BTW, know anyone who doubts acid rain? Guess the huge 4.6 billion dollar lawsuit the EPA just won against American Electric Power Co for dumping crap on the north east is a bunch of voodoo.

Man, this is like kicking a chained dog who lost all his teeth years ago.
Crust

October 12, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Re the war and peace implications of global warming, General Zinni apparently agrees with the Nobel Committee:

General Anthony C. Zinni, former commander-in-chief of US Central Command stated, “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today…or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives.”

The “peace angle” is something Gore talks about, although I agree with Jayson that it is not his primary agenda.

I think the chaos theory reference is misplaced here. Sure for any particular war it’s very hard or impossible to attribute causes or say what would have happened in counterfactual circumstances. But that doesn’t mean you can’t say something about trends. It’s kind of like the weather (can’t predict specifically beyond a few days due to chaos) vs. climate (can model general trends) distinction.
Crust

October 12, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Tim Lambert asks a good question @ 8:52. What about Norman Borlaug of green revolution fame? He didn’t negotiate any peace agreements either. He worked out how to increase crop yields. Which reduces hunger. Which reduces conflict and wars. Or at least that’s the argument. It’s indirect, as in the Gore case. And preventing wars was obviously not Borlaug’s primary agenda either. BTW, James, apologies for somehow calling you Jayson in my last comment.
mannning

October 12, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Computer models! Wonderful things. They are indeed able to use many variables and many assumed values derived from past data, and many approximations for the constants needed. They absorb hundreds and thousands of hours of computing to move a projection forward a few years. Yet the envelope of uncertainty surrounding the projections expands and expands as it overruns valid data and assumptions about the Universe.

By the time we get to 2027 or 2037 the projections are flatly useless. Weather predictions are a case in point. Despite massive improvements in weather models, and the hardware that supports them, the weather itself defeats the model predictions time and time again, and can only tell us gross things about trends within its range. We MAY have a few hurricanes this Fall–9 or 10, maybe, or maybe 11 or 12, if there isn’t 13 or 14. Oh and hurricane George will hit Florida, or South Carolina, or North Carolina, or Virginia, or Maryland, or…who knows?

That we are in a warming trend is not in dispute. The dispute is in the various predictions of the cycle we are in: catastrophic or not, and whether our minuscule contribution really counts or not for more than its 1% over the next 50 or 100 years.

Science is not able to tell us with any real certainty, so anyone standing up and saying with great passion that the sky is falling! The sky is falling! is heard and followed, no matter his motivations. So we must rush to solve the “problem” by what? Massive expenditures on reduction of gas emissions, and even banding together as a world authority to force everyone to comply! Even the Brits are dubious: Gore had 9 false claims in his epic fear-movie, said one judge.

Who is poised to lead this super world effort? Follow the power and money!
Jim Henley

October 12, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Say this for Borlaug: He actually got people fed. Gore hasn’t stopped global warming. Of course, Ang San Suu Key is not leading a free and peaceful Burma either, so I shouldn’t pick on Gore.
Hal

October 12, 2007 at 7:06 pm

Gore had 9 false claims in his epic fear-movie, said one judge.

Yea, gotta love legislating science from the bench being championed by the right.
mannning

October 12, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Better check your facts, HAL. If you are trying to suggest that the judge did this on his own sans high-level technical advice, you are wrong. In any event, lies are lies, and it was about time someone called it on Algore.
Hal

October 13, 2007 at 12:31 am

….. – manning

hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Okay. Whew. Where was I.

Yea, you’re still a moron.
Hal

October 13, 2007 at 1:15 am

If you are trying to suggest that the judge did this on his own sans high-level technical advice, you are wrong.

To address this insanity with more respect than it deserves: “yes, and we all know that the technical advice was of much higher quality than Al Gore’s technical advice because it determined he was wrong and agreed with my bias”.
Hal

October 13, 2007 at 2:11 am

Better check your facts, HAL.

I think I’ll just let Tim Lambert do yeoman’s work for me. Pray tell, where’s you’re homework, mannning?

<cricket’s chirping>
Bandit

October 13, 2007 at 7:44 pm

I did more for world peace when I stopped a fight in soccer practice.
G.A.Phillips

October 13, 2007 at 8:46 pm

….. – manning

hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Okay. Whew. Where was I.

Yea, you’re still a moron.

Much better then being a Goron!!!!
G.A.Phillips

October 13, 2007 at 9:34 pm

LgIiBvEiRnAgL LaIwBaErRdAsL fLoIr BbEeRiAnLg.

LgIiBvEiRnAgL LaIwBaErRdAsL fLoIr BbEeRiAnLg.

Liberal liberals giving liberal awards to liberal liberals for liberally being liberal liberals, liberal yawn. Liberal!

Libliberalelals givliberingal libaweralards to libliberalelals for beliberingal libliberalelal, libyawneral.

WoW you showed me, did I missspell sumtin?

and I agree I’m not much here without a spellcheacker, like your not much here without bieng little p#%$%@s, but then again every one has their flaws.
mannning

October 13, 2007 at 9:58 pm

An idiot laughs! Just what was expected.
Michael

October 13, 2007 at 10:19 pm

LgIiBvEiRnAgL LaIwBaErRdAsL fLoIr BbEeRiAnLg.

WoW you showed me, did I missspell sumtin?

Please God don’t tell me we have to explain this to you.
Hal

October 14, 2007 at 11:17 pm

An idiot laughs! Just what was expected.

Na uh! I’m rubber and you’re glue – it bounces off of me and sticks to you!

Still, you’re in fine company, mannning. Only a true sage like yourself could see through this clever ruse.
mannning

October 15, 2007 at 2:03 pm

One should read one’s references very carefully, indeed. It is, in this case, a polemic that never addresses the 9 faults of AIT, per se, but casts aspersions on the judge, the WAPO, and anyone else that pooh poohs AIT. In the end, a sly admission of errors in AIT is slipped in, but is excused because “the message isn’t harmed,” they say! Wonderful logic.

The letters may be faked but the intent was there!
Yet another variation on this leftist tactic.
Hal

October 15, 2007 at 2:27 pm

My god, mannning, if you bothered to read my first reference, you’d see the key point right up at the top of the post. Guess there’s “too many words” for ya to read even that far

If you noticed the quotation marks around ‘error’ then you are more observant than all of the journalists I listed above. Burton is not saying that there are errors, he is just referring to the things that Downes alleged were errors. Burton puts quote marks around ‘error’ 17 more times in his judgement. Notice also the emphasised part — Burton is not even trying to decide whether they are errors or not. This too seems to have escaped the journalists’ attention.

Emphasized the important sentence so you can easily find it.

Like I said, bounces off me and sticks to you.
Hal

October 15, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Also, mannning, note the passage from Burton that Tim is referring to

Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand.

In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters – 9 in all – upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the ‘errors’ in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 ‘errors’ that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant’s case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.

So, you are relying on a court decision to claim that – to quote your original assertion – “Gore had 9 false claims in his epic fear-movie” which flatly states nothing of the kind.

Guess that’s another variation of the “rightist” tactic of simply making sh*t up out of whole cloth.
G.A.Phillips

October 15, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Please God don’t tell me we have to explain this to you.

na just got a little angry, you know how sensitive I am about my spelling, if you think what im saying sucks and wanna make fun of me thats all good but my spelling is off limits!
Michael

October 15, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Ok, G.A.Phillips, I’ll give you a hint:

“LgIiBvEiRnAgL LaIwBaErRdAsL fLoIr BbEeRiAnLg.” isn’t about spelling, and it’s not just random characters. Note that some are upper, and some are lower case.
mannning

October 15, 2007 at 4:02 pm

The statement stands that none of these people addressed the specifics of the 9 errors or flaws in AIT being referred to. They were wished away. So, despite all of the words, the issue is still glaring at you: 9 flaws (or more!). I would like to see you claim that AIT was flawless! 🙂
Michael

October 15, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Ok, I’m confused now.

Hal keeps posting things stating that while someone claimed that “9 flaws” existed in AIT, a judge ruled otherwise.

Manning keeps posting that the “9 flaws” were not addressed, still implying that “9 flaws” were indeed found (as opposed to merely claimed) in AIT, but simply disregarded.

So someone please tell me, what are these supposed “9 flaws” in AIT, who has proven them to be “flaws” (or proven them to be true), and what percentage of claims in AIT these “9 flaws” constitute.

Thanks.
Hal

October 15, 2007 at 4:24 pm

The statement stands that none of these people addressed the specifics of the 9 errors or flaws in AIT being referred to.

So now we’re in pretzel logic mode, eh? You originally made the bold claim that a Judge had determined there were 9 errors in Gore’s movie. This claim of yours is plainly false. Next, you made the claim “If you are trying to suggest that the judge did this on his own sans high-level technical advice, you are wrong.”, which is also plainly false. So now you’re reduced to weakly asserting that no one has addressed the flaws alleged.

Well, mannning, when did you start beating your wife? Further, when did you stop sleeping with that group of football players for money? How come you stopped doing heroin? And for that matter, how come you had a lobotomy?

Seriously, dude, this is farcical. Your bold assertions evaporated and now you’re whining that no one took the trouble to answer some assertions someone somewhere made.

I guess this is another classic example of a “rightist” tactic. Keep shifting the goal posts.

Geebus.
Hal

October 15, 2007 at 4:45 pm

So someone please tell me, what are these supposed “9 flaws” in AIT, who has proven them to be “flaws” (or proven them to be true), and what percentage of claims in AIT these “9 flaws” constitute.

You can find the judge’s ruling here. Sections 23-32 contain the nine claims of errors. It’s quite readable, and so I’ll not reproduce it here. As to the “what percentage of claims in AIT these ‘9 flaws’ constitute” that’s kind of a non-answerable question.

As to mannning’s assertion that no one has addressed these “flaws”, again it’s clear that mannning just doesn’t read. The first reference I gave contains a detailed response to each of the nine claimed flaws. There’s another detailed response by another science blogger, James Hrynyshyn.

So, if mannning actually bothered to read rather than simply assert, he’d actually find what he was looking for – assuming he wanted to find it.
mannning

October 16, 2007 at 2:00 pm

There is a huge difference between waltzing around a lie, defending the liar, and addressing the science behind the statements of Algore and the framing of AIT. Others, in fact a long list of renown scientists, have debunked AIT and its many lies of omission and commission (20 or so, at least), and its shaded interpretations of isolated data being applied worldwide, simply to make political points, and not scientifically valid points. To mention just a few:

–That it is settled science! Bull.
–That the hockey stick chart is an accurate representation! Nope.
–That Greenland is losing its cover to atmospheric heat. Wrong.
–That Kilimanjaro’s snow is melting because of increased CO2 (a clever misrepresentation by juxtaposition).
–That the ten hottest years occurred in the last 14 years, and 2005 was the hottest. A lie. It was 1998, and since 2001 temps have been stable, and there has been a global cooling trend.
–That the oceans would rise 20 FEET, when the NAS and IPCC have stated that under the worst scenario, we might see 4-35 INCHES.

I have no time for more of this, but it goes on for a long while, with backup from world class scientists.

The clincher is that Algore himself admitted he was “exaggerating for effect” (read lying!).

These were some of the issues that were important, and they were not properly or honestly handled by Algore, he distorted the picture. Too bad the judge was not in the same game of judgment at all, nor were the craven, religiously-motivated apologists for Father Algore, the leader of the Global Warming by CO2 sect, nor Mr. Halgore, a somewhat lesser acolyte.
Hal

October 16, 2007 at 2:22 pm

I have no time for more of this

No doubt. You’ve had your ass handed to you and now you’re munching on the hamburger made from it. What you’re simply doing is moving the goal posts yet again. After you’re previous chest puffing assertions vanished like pixie dust in the summer rain, you whined “The statement stands that none of these people addressed the specifics of the 9 errors or flaws in AIT being referred to”. So I produced 2 posts that when into great detail in addressing the specifics – precisely as you requested. You’re response? Simply copying what the judge wrote in his findings and asserting them as self evident truths. Not even the patina of an argument to back up your assertions.

Pretty darn pathetic, mannning. Now wonder you guys are simply resorting to shrill demagoguery and constant whining. Oh, I forgot. The comical reliance on Crichton’s almost laughable understanding of “chaos theory as a magic wand to wave in front of the eyes of those you’ve confused in some vain attempt at looking like you’ve thought about the subject.

Seriously, dude, the whole authoritarian thing is so 20th century. Move with the times and learn the basics of argument and logical thought.
Yovana

October 17, 2007 at 7:36 am

Al Gore was one of the biggest proponents of bombing my country. Even though in time I got used to injustice, I just couldn`t ignore the fact that THIS man won Nobel prize for peace!!!
There are so many people working hard on environment issues for decades, but they`re just “little” people… It looks like Gore decided to get so to say: involved just a few months ago in order to get this prize?!
After last years winner I was so touched and I thought nothing can destroy the reputation of this prize. I guess I was wrong…This is big shame for this institution, I believe that the presure was just so hard on them.
mannning

October 18, 2007 at 5:14 pm

The fact remains, halgore, that the real science behind about 20 of the statements in AIT shows clearly that Algore was exaggerating, cherry-picking, ignoring contrary facts, and outright lying for political effect.

That is the issue here, not your little tantrums.

If you care to get a nose full of the facts, you should Google “AIT analysis”. Serious and unbiased scientists deplore what has been done by Algore. It is quite similar to the “Eugenics” scandals of the 30s and 40s, where far too many so-called prominent and bright people fell into the delusion, perhaps because it fit into their world view and lust for power.

What is needed is good science developing good conclusions to act upon, not scare books and movies that ultimately promote a leftist agenda for world dominion. Any noise you make to the contrary labels you a leftist kook.

(No further comments needed.)
Hal

October 18, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Mannning, you certainly seem to have a gift for timing. Here’s the update on the nine “errors” over at Deltoid by several actual climate scientists. I know you don’t read at all, but you should go and read it read it and see for yourself.

BTW, the asinine suggestion to google “AIT analysis”, of course, brings up 5 million hits, of which, absolutely none have to do with analysis of hte movie because it’s an absolutely stupid google search.

“no further comments needed”

Indeed. Because you a) can’t even argue your own assertions and b) you really have no idea at all what you are talking about.

Still, the “halgore” is pretty funny in a third grade playground sort of way.

And I really do like the whole Birch-esque conspiracy theory (now with Eugenics!) y’all are obsessed with. C’mon, if you try just a bit harder you can tie Soros into this and accuse him of more conspiring due to his association with all this. C’mon, you can do it!