I don’t know of any countries that laid down their weapons because Mr. Gore said it got hotter by a degree.

I agree the climate is changing…but it always has been. I agree that this time humans may even play a large role in it. So? Who’s to say that the current average temperature is the best one? Maybe 2 or 3 degrees warmer would mean more bountiful crops. We came out of the little ice age just a couple hundred years ago. Guess what got us out of it? GLOBAL WARMING. I don’t think anyone was complaining then.

The oceans may rise a foot….they may rise 5 feet. It’s not going to be a huge wall of water flowing in like a tsunami. It’s pretty easy. Pick up your umbrella and beach towel and move back. About a foot a year should do it. I think we can manage that pace.

If you own a home on the beach….well, give me a break. You probably paid a 200% premium for having it there. You can afford to move.

AP – Al Gore has for a long time been full of hot air. He has a vivid imagination about the world around him. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. Al’s basic mistrust of the seasons may stem from an episode of the Twilight Zone, in which the Earth gets too close to the Sun. Summers are hot & sticky, and Gore is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures needed to create a more effective global deodorant.

If former college roommate, Tommy Lee Jones, could save the City of Los Angeles from an errant volcano, and the world from a giant cockroach in Men In Black, then certainly big Al Gore deserves a prize for his Global Warming Antiperspirant Initiative to control perspiration, and prevent the meltdown of Earth. Now, you too can use the same effective ingredients and trusted formula that kept our leaders dry during the Cold War. As the planet heats up, you don’t have to! Clinton tested: guaranteed to leave no trace: http://theseedsof9-11.com

In the meantime, thousands died, because the flat-earthers (the cigarette companies and smokers) wanted irrefutable evidence.

I know people (including other scientists) are resistant to changes in scientific thinking, history has shown that again and again.

Nitpicking delays acceptance of reality.

Second, we the hell are we in such a rush? Everyone in this society is in a huge hurry….quicker, faster, quicker, faster, more efficient, time is money, don’t waste time, quickly, I can’t wait in line……..Look at the way people drive and people talk. Look at the yuppie who has to wear an ear piece cell phone into the store to buy bread and milk. Is he that important that he may need to be reached while paying the cashier before returning to his car within the next 90 seconds. Maybe he thinks he is. High speed this, faster that….don’t waste time, be more effiencient. THANK YOU CORPORATE AMERICA, YOU’VE TRAINED US WELL.

My questions…..is anything sacrificed by this way of thinking and behaving? Perhaps patience and the ability to stop and smell the roses? Are personal relationships damaged? Do people feel less connected and more like a piece of retail commodity? Do conversations feel transactional? Seems like it’s a huge badge of honor to always be on the run, always be busy…..don’t have time to visit family, brothers and sisters, old friends, Mom and Dad, Grandma and Grandpa…..Well, how important can those things actually be? Let’s just wait 6 more months until Christmas and miss out on the actual life that happens in between….let’s just grow more distant….after all we can wait until there there is a crises, spend a few days understanding what’s really imporant, pledge to change, and then get back to being busy, wearing our cell phone earpieces(that make us look like some cyborg creation out of Star Wars) and then let’s get back to our 60 hours work works, endless company traveling, going global and learning how to be more politically correct since our fortune 500 company preaches diversity and inclusion.

Just some food for thought. Stay local, not global. Peace.

Its actually called ‘Climate Change’ and its gonna happen…deal with it.

“There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.” Tell you what- I won’t declare war on Russia, you give me the Peace prize next year. This has only diminished thwe prestige of those winners of the past who truly deserved it, a very sad result.

I think there is climate change. I think humanity is leaving an effect on the world. I don’t know if it’s as dramatic as people like Al Gore would have us believe. There is so much debate either way.

He won this prize as Poster Boy for his cause. Did he simply adopt a cause to espouse, or is he sincere? I don’t know.

The Peace Prize seems like an odd one to give out for this – they couldn’t give him a Pulitzer…?

As for the name calling (“flat-earthers?”), it is completely unnecessary and destroys your credibility.

I completely understand that many of you buy into what the media tells you, but in this case, you should all do a little ‘open-minded’ research, and read evidence from both sides.

As this issue has somehow become political (although it is unclear as to why), every scientist with an opposing view has been pushed to the back-burner for people like Gore.

I must move on to other (newer) threads elsewhere, so I leave this forum with a Newsweek article supporting climate change:

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

So, there is no denying it: climate change is a real and immediate danger (and it is also clear why ‘global warming’ has been dropped for a more inclusive term).

Good day to you all.

Here in Tampa there is a school that didnt inform parents of this and found out afterwards that their kids are being shown the movie and it’s being taught as fact.

That bothers me because they again are only showing 1 side of the story to these kids who will believe anything a teacher will tell them.

It’s wrong unless they show both sides, which they don’t because then they’d possibly be proven wrong and we can’t have that. No siree.

Cigarettes causing cancer is disputed. Evolution (micro and macro) is disputed. The spherical shape of the earth is disputed. The moon landings are disputed. The holocaust is disputed.

Why is ‘undisputed’ so important to you flat-earthers?

ALL of the papers compiled within the IPCC report are peer-reviewed:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Read the actual report. It answers all the questions about variability of the sun’s radiation, past climatic fluctuations, temperature measurement regimens (urban heat island), etc. All that smokescreen stuff which was thrown out by the oil companies is answered here.

Want more peer review? Here’s a report requested by Congress and issued last year by the National Academy of Sciences:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=1167 6
As peer review goes, it probably doesn’t get much more complete or distinguished than the Nat’l Academy of Sciences.

Al Gore got some stuff wrong on “An Inconvenient Truth”. He was operating off of earlier studies…some study results which were later discounted as being too alarmist & too fast (mainly Greenland Ice Sheet melting). But his persistent drumbeat may actually be bringing the truth rising to the top. For bringing the issue forward in this truly global matter, the Nobel Peace Prize is entirely appropriate.

Here are a couple of new links, too…and they’re about actual climatolologists, not oil industry shills:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/earth/02arct.html?ex=1349064 000&en=ecde303f8c62ace8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6999078.stm

I’m not trying to flame you, but I don’t think you could even find a credible peer reviewed scientific paper on global warming that didn’t say that. Unless you look at old research.

Also, to access these Peer reviewed journals where these studies are published you often have to subscribe to it, or be a college student (which allows you to access it through the library website).

But yeah, I would be astounded if you could find a reputable scientific study done recently that said man isn’t responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions and that increased CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t cause global warming.

PS: There are a few internet journals out there, but their studies aren’t peer reviewed by the scientific community at large and more often than not they aren’t even specialists in the field.

If anyone has a credible (peer reviewed) link with evidence that either:
a) Man is the leading cause of CO2 emissions,
or,
b) CO2 in the atmosphere is causing “climate change,” (formerly referred to as ‘global warming’), please link them here.

As I am sure most of you with a bit of related education know, there are no such undisputed, scientific findings.

Again, Chris, et. al, this whole issue is politics.
Nothing more.

Clearly, Chris, you are not a scientist. And, as I am (credentials upon request), I must ask that you cease in spreading your BS.

Much thanks,
Billy

A terrorist, a thug and a fool, AlGore will fit right in with his spiritual brothers.

Although the fact that Gore won a “peace” prize for something which does not directly correlate to the peace process, I think it’s legitimate that he was awarded the prize for raising awareness about global warming. Which is real…and important enough to merit a broadening of the definition of “peace”

MAN BEAR PIG

It does suck that Gandhi never got it.

I just wanted to make a few comments.
I’m assuming number 55 the truth will set you free wanted to link you to the website, but messed up. I found it at newsbusters.org who’s slogan is “exposing and combating the liberal media bias”… enough said

Anyways he copies and pastes the article basically word for word (hence the bold).

Also, it was 9 points the court took issue with not 11. I also love the way he slants the answers to make it seem like there is no way they could be true.

The truth is yeah some of these things are bogus like the polar bear story, but most of the problems are simply from the incredible complexity of Global Warming.

The anti-global warming crowd likes to forget that the judge is allowing the film to be shown in public schools and that no credible scientist is denying man made global warming. It’s just that the specifics are difficult to pin down exactly.

Just because there are some issues with his documentary doesn’t make his other points any less true.

All I know is that he deserves it a lot more than Bush does.

Brilliant. Actually, Rush Limbaugh is far more deserving of the prize than Gore.

That’s not very informative…

I’m going to put more trust in an international panel of scientists, especially when they’re in consensus, over some Schnitt radio/internet personality.

That’s laughable; the only “consensus” is from those who’ve bought into the theory and have the most to gain from it.

Inconvenient Truth was found to have at least eleven material inaccuracies in it on matters that Gore claimed to be Gospel truth. In most places that qualifies him as a liar. That alone ought to have kept him out of the running for the Nobel.
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.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

The real inconvenient truth is that Gore is full of it.

I’m super ceral.

“Global Warming is not a threat to any sort of peace”

Global warming is caused by humankind’s dependence on fossil fuels like coal and oil, and our unsustainable use of these fuels.

We fight wars for these fuels.

And, when the climate gets bad enough, we’ll fight wars for that, too.

You’re incredibly naive.

Bush Ties Peace Prize Record

With the selection of the International Committee on Climate Change and Al Gore, Jr., for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, President Bush has moved into the record book for most Peace Prizes awarded to Americans during their presidency.

His Presidency is tied with three others for most Americans winning the Award!

Previous American Presidents to share multiple peace prizes during their Presidency were Ronald Reagan, Richard M. Nixon and…Herbert Hoover.
http://boifromtroy.com/?p=6869

Many of the videos are documents on his page have statements from scientists in the IPCC who are stating that they do not agree with Al Gore and are tired of being mixed in with the people who are, just because they are also a part of the IPCC.

I’m serious, watch the first 3 videos in those links and you will see what I’m talking about. Or don’t. It all depends on if you want to walk the walk, or just talk it.

Except that a great many conflicts in the world are due to scarcity of natural resources, and global warming will only exacerbate that. A stable climate is a GREAT thing for world peace.

As far as the “natural cycle” folks go, Gore addresses that, as does the IPCC. We’re well outside the bounds of natural cycles. I’m sorry, but I’m going to put more trust in an international panel of scientists, especially when they’re in consensus, over some Schnitt radio/internet personality.

I would have to disagree and say, yes, this is a neat topic, in as much has this is still the FIRST article on the neatorama page and there are over 40 comments posted. Also, I disagree on how Al Gore never gave us options on what to DO for the environment. The movie just gave evidence that we need to do something, his books give us plenty of how-to’s.

Remember books? If people read more, maybe he wouldn’t have had to make a movie.

So, yes, I would have to say that he deserved the peace prize. You know, having promoted fraternity between nations. Kyoto anyone? Many of our nations are now fighting a common enemy: ourselves, and our pollution.

Regardless of your stance on global warming, how can you justify giving the nobel PEACE Prize to someone for their work on a subject that will do absolutely nothing in the struggle for worldwide peace? Global Warming is not a threat to any sort of peace except the peace of mind of people who buy Humvees. This is like giving the Gold Medal in the olympic pole vault to Stephen King because he wrote a really good book on gardening.

I absolutely am a Right Wing Conservative and if I had a Hummer (a real hummer, not the sissy H2/3) you bet your bottom dollar I’d be driving it. Instead I’m relatively poor and drive a 4cyl S-10 and Aveo.. Quite the carbon emitting vehicles! Oh and my tractor that I use to take care of my field, I’m going to be converting it over to be run off bio-diesel.. not because of the carbon emissions but because it’s so much cheaper.

And I love Focus on the Family.

I wonder what Alfred would say about this.

The “peace” prize has lost all credibility.