For this post I didn't go trawling through freeper or blog comments or look at obscure blogs. I just went to memeorandum.
The Nobel Prize committee has basically surrendered to hysterics, mass exaggerators, and liars, most of who are not even climatologists or even any type of scientist.
Today's award to Al Gore and the IPCC "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" fits in with a subset of cosmopolitan frauds, fakers, murderers, thieves, and no-accounts going back about twenty years
Pat Santy (who is, I kid you not, an actual psychiatrist):
The Healing of the Traumatized Left Has Begun ! ...
Undoing is a psychological defense mechanism where there is an attempt to take back behavior or thoughts that were unacceptable. An example of undoing would be excessively praising someone after having insulted them.
I can't help thinking that Gore's prize is yet another attempt by the left to undo the horrible trauma of Election 2000. Ever the mouthpiece of leftist fantasy and delusion, Jimmy agrees (and don't forget, he was the 2002 winner of the same prize).
As a psychiatrist, I can fully appreciate and understand their delight and anticipation. For almost eight years--since the 2000 election was "stolen" from them, the mentally unbalanced left has been suffering from a sort of group PTSD.
The former US Vice-President has already taken over from Michael Moore as the most sanctimonious lardbutt Yank on the planet.
It seems the Nobel committee believes things nonexistent really do cause war. This is yet another clue indicating that "global warming" is nothing less than another line of attack in the attempt to establish global governance.
You know, the one world government that will bring peace on earth and goodwill to men.
If you listen quietly you can actually hear their heads exploding.
Santy is a raving wingnut with her own set of psychological problems. It's not that surprising given that some people become interested in psychology/psychiatry to fix their own fucked up selves.
Would their collective heads need to contain matter for them to explode? I am under the impression that containers containing a vacuum implode.
Can me some people explain what is the following relationship :
Global Warming+Gore= Peace????
Can me some people explain what is the following relationship : Global Warming+Gore= Peace????
yes this is an EXTREMELY complicated question, you can ponder on it for years.
or just take a look at the EXPLANATION that the committee is giving:
Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They 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.
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lau_announce2007.html
Jorge,
"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."
http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0710/full/climate.2007.56.html
The Washington Post has a bad case of GDS. Today, they're pimping the British court finding of nine "errors" on the front page, without even so much as asking a scientist to comment. Bob Somerby is on the case.
"It seems the Nobel committee believes things nonexistent really do cause war"
Is it too obvious of me to say WMD? It is, isn't it? Oh well...
As a previous Commanding General of the United States Marine Corps, Zinni is CLEARLY a leftist, commie, pinko, hippy freak.
CLEARLY!
"...with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds."
Science or even logic certainly weren't uppermost in their minds.
Ah, the precautionary principle, the core religious tenet, and tawdry refuge, of the AGW faithful. I liked it better when it was called Pascal's wager.
"If AGW is wrong than what have we lost by believing? If it's right and we continue to transgress against Mother Gaia a fiery inferno awaits us. Better to pay your carbon tithes than risk hellfire!"
It didn't get me to embrace Christianity and it certainly isn't going to get me to fawn over Al Gore.
Comment regarding WMD: unforgettable. You made my day! :)
And presumably a brick falling on your head isn't likely to get you to accept the Theory of Gravity.
Your childish, cartoonish misstatement of the Precautionary Principle is telling. I suppose you are hoping that medical schools drop the principle of "Primum non nocere" too, right?
Just to be consistent and all that?
That's what I like about you dhogaza, you never fail to vituperate. Like the tiny Chihuahua that's a flury of barks and snarls, to hide its toothless maw, your feckless arguments hide behind a frothing lather of vitriole.
Then you throw in a non sequitur as you strut off on your tiny little legs. "Primum non nocere", first do no harm, would be an entirely different argument.
Amusingly "primum non nocere" is actually a powerful argument AGAINST most of the prescribed "remedies" to AGW like carbon taxes, fuel surcharges, bio fuel subsidies etc. These punitive actions cause obvious harm while promising elusary benefits in the distant future. No doctor would ask you to take a drug that had serious side effects based on dubious computer models. Well, no reputable one anyway.
I can hear you puffing and snorting already.
As we see across Blogonia, the denialists now are moving on, to explain that climate mitigation is going to be economically damaging. They are going to lose that argument too... They will have to defend themselves for believing that there is only one path to economic growth, and defend themselves for believing that economic models are better at prediction than climate ones. The reverse is true in both cases. They really don't know much about climatology or economics, it would appear... Worse from their own viewpoint, they don't think humans are creative and rise to challenges. So they don't know science, and they are putting themselves into an untenable psychological position.
I especially appreciate Santy's assertion that the 2007 Nobel committee's primary motivation in awarding this prize is a 7-year-old US turf war. How could anything be more important than that? Here in the rest of the world we're sort of used to US pundits exhibiting a parochiality bordering on solipsism, but this is one for the casebooks.
I believe in man-made global warming, but Gore won the prize for engaging in none of the acts the Nobel Peace Prize was intended to encourage. Some of the former winners (such as Kissinger and Arafat) have been extremely poorly chosen but could at least be justified under the conditions set out in Alfred Nobel's will. I think the first person to get the Peace Prize for being essentially a left-wing icon was the dishonest Rigoberta Menchú. Gore completes the transition to Peace Prize recipients who haven't done anything for the cause of peace. It's a bad trend that will further erode the Prize's credibility.
Thanks Tim
Our very own thread. Have to go but will be back filling the space explaining why I think Gore is a fat, usless twerp.
Of course 100 million American voters can't be wrong.
I think Tim's been well picked up on the typo that has "exploding" heads where "imploding" must be correct usage.
On the other hand I love to see a hitherto hopeless delusional make an acute point so Lance's dubious conflation of precautionary principle with Pascal's Wager is half good, while I think the observation that "primum non nocere" should warn us against ill conceived would-be solutions to global warming is fully good.
Happy days and way to go, Al Gore and IPCC!
Al Gore believes the world should change, and he is helping to start it. It is a remarkable achievement. He is held in higher public esteem around the world than perhaps any other living U.S. citizen, possibly excepting Bill Clinton. He is one of the very few World Citizens. His status as a real integrative force toward the "fraternity of nations" is beyond the jaded purview of many Americans, but we should celebrate it as a welcome balance to the extraordinary stink the country has made. On goodwill and foreign policy reasons alone, Al Gore easily meets the requirements of the will of Alfred Nobel.
Gore's recent book is also the best single diagnosis, to date, of the U.S.'s wrong turn away from its Constitution. See a quick YouTube outline of the book's argument at
http://youtube.com/watch?v=P6nTAR2MVYQ
No, actually, "first do no harm" would argue against using the atmosphere as a sewer ...
Now if only Gore would actually live up to his own rhetoric rather than leaving his own massive carbon footprint.
And if he weren't fat, we might actually start believing doctors when they tell us to watch their weight, right?
Leave the ad homs at home, makes you seem silly.
Gore have big house, butt. Science not settle.
Lee
Why don't you set up a church and worship the bolivator. You're adoration of tubby is a little creepy, dude. Just trying to help.
Hoggsie
I'm sorry, but laughing and making fun at fat people is a noble sport: a sport of kings. I'd love to see Gore and Mick Mooore on stage together: reinforced.
Al coming home after long day in the office or private jet saving the world.
"Honey I'm home, "WHERE'S DINNER!"
Huh? I think you need to work on your analogies. Nevertheless, if a doctor were fat you might want to take his weight loss advice with a grain of salt. But since you brought up obesity, Gore could certainly do shedding a few pounds since heavier people necessarily require more fuel to transport and growing food leaves a carbon footprint of its own.
My motto for 2008: Shed a few pounds. Do it for Gaia!
Since over 30% of adult Americans over 20 yrs. old are obese, (Centers for Disease Control,) it might be a good idea.
I guess then you can come back and ask "How is that a serious suggestion?".
As far as promoting issues which may lead to mitigating risks of hypothetical conflicts go, climate change is still at the bottom of that list.
In fact, I can really only think of carbon emission targets as a hypothetical cause of conflict. What would international IPCC harmony preventng a conflict even look like ? What would the war be about that doesn't occur or is resolved here ?
Like the tiny Chihuahua that's a flury of barks and snarls, to hide its toothless maw...
You really think Chihuahuas don't have teeth? Man, you are so desperate to make some kind of point that your brain is backfiring.
Also, if you're going to look up big words to try to sound impressive, try to spell more of them correctly.
Also, your attempt at colorful metaphor is the sort of thing that makes English teachers everywhere flinch. The dog *is* a flury(sic) of barks *to* hide its maw? Ouch.
Gore have big house, butt. Science not settle.
Gore house, ass irrelevant. Ignorant wingers dispute science. Perhaps in this sense science not settle, but if this is new standard science also still not settle round v flat earth.
I'm sorry, but laughing and making fun at fat people is a noble sport
I think the second-to-last word here was supposed to be "pathetic". Just trying to help. IMO, "sports" are things about athletic competition, not things where one covers up one's apparent inferiority complex by acting like a teenage douchebag.
Are you still angry at the world for teasing you about riding the short bus? 'cos that's the least-asinine explanation I can think of for interrupting a thread about the Nobel Peace Price to talk about your fascination with overweight people. Perhaps you were looking for HateOnFatties.com or somesuch.
Kilo #29 -- The military concern is of sudden forced migrations of populations in search of food and water, or fleeing floods or extreme weather. You will have to argue with the Pentagon! Since wars are about politics, religion, or resources, they've been looking at it for a while... Here are two news reports on recent Pentagon studies of possible conflicts due to climate change:
April 2007 -- "The National Security Implications of Global Climate Change" (Army War College and Center for Naval Analyses):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR20070…
February 2004 -- "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security"
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.ht…
PDF of this report at:
http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf
Sorry that last link didn't translate. You can click to it by hitting "PDF" on this page:
http://www.climate.org/topics/climate/pentagon.shtml
Here in Oz, the head of the Australian Federal Police has made the claim that climate change is the largest future security issue facing the nation:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/28/2046340.htm
The US Navy, Army, Airforce and Marines have also labeled climate change as a significant security risk, and have begun seriously investigating the manner:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2007/2007-04-16-05.asp
http://www.nps.navy.mil/gsois/calendar/event_details.asp?id_eve=177&dat…
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/events/details.cfm?q=82
It seems that there are many people, in high ranking positions in defence and national security positions who view climate change as a real threat to the world's stability, particularly in countries already in the thick of civil strife.
Obviously these people are communists, lefties or pinkos, and only want to stop people driving Hummers because they hate progress.
Well then, by all means, lets take the prize from Gore and give it to these fine people instead. If we have to give it to those who are merely spouting off opinions rather than doing careful research on the relation between global warming and human conflict, then lets at least give it to experts who address the subject directly rather than a popularizer with little to say about the matter.
For the record, I don't hate Gore and I would still like Gore to run for president since he has an excellent voting record as an immigration restrictionist - far better than any of the Republicans or Democrats in the race. If he pledged to maintain that hard line on immigration, then I would probably vote for him. He is one of those rare liberals who isn't a hypocrite when it comes to honestly assessing the relationship between immigration, population growth, and environmental impact. I have to give him points there.
Mike C, I would agree with you entirely if it werent' for the fact that virtually all of the developed countries finance huge, ecological deficits 'at home' that can only be offset by pursuing economic policies (e.g. through neoliberalism and the 'Washington Consensus') that effectively amount to the looting and theft of resources from less developed countries. Samir Amin, one of Africa's leading economists, made this point at the World Social Forum at Port Allegre in 2003, and it is well described by economists Tom Athanasiou and Patrick Bond in their books "Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor" and "Looting Africa: The Economics of Exploitation". Essentially, developed countries are 'urban economies' that could never sustain themselves without obtaining cheap resources from abroad.
Have you read the infamous Memo 20 from a cabal of senior politicians (included Kissinger, Haig, Vance etc) in 1974, which stated that the US should promote depopulation of third-world countries because the US economy would require an increasing amount of resources from these countries? Or George Kennan's 1948 'Policy Planning Document 23'? Or then Chief Economist of the World Bank Larry Summers infamously leaked 1991 memo? Or retired US General Smedley Butler's 1934 speech? There are countless examples where US government and corporate planners expressed similar views. The real enemy of US, UK and western foreign policy is and has always been 'indiginous nationalism' where countries whose resources we covet pursue independent policies. I'd also suggest you read the New York Times' editorial after the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in 1953; the editors celebrated the coup and said that it should serve as a warning to countries that effectively go berserk and think that they can follow their own independent course of development.
Therefore, before claiming that tight immigration in the US is the cure-all of many of our global environmental problems, I'd suggest that the developed countries stop pludering the resources from developing countries and work towards 'zero consumption growth' at home (and, in fact, aim to reverse it).
Firstly, whether or not you believe in the Gaia religion has no bearing on the facts: the fact that CO2 increases cause temperature increases (as has e. g. happened 66 and 55 million years ago), the fact that we are increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere, the fact that the global average annual temperature is increasing, the fact that the sea level is increasing. Gaia is a completely unnecessary hypothesis.
Secondly, there won't be a fiery inferno. The worst-case scenario is that the whole world becomes a tropical paradise. Sounds great if you aren't an Arctic or Antarctic species, but you evacuate Bangladesh, not me. Over 150 million inhabitants... half of the country, comprising more than half of the population, would go under if the sea level increased by just 1 m... when Greenland melts, you get 7 (seven) m of increase; when West Antarctica melts in addition, you get 22 (twenty-two) m, as was the case three interglacials ago; and the "tropical paradise" scenario would include East Antarctica melting as well, though over millennia.
Of course it didn't. You put <i> tags between the quotation marks of the <a href=""> tag. That doesn't work.
See, that's why Gore got only half of the prize, and the other half went to the IPCC.
If a popularizer manages to change the US public opinion, more power to him.
Yeah and you'll find similar comments from the same people about the threat of cyberwar. Both of which refer to hypothetical future conflicts. Neither of which concern 2007, just like carbon targets don't concern peace efforts.
Nth Korea, Sudan, Iran, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma, Palestine, Lebanon, Solomons, Timor. Nigeria, Colombia. Apparently there's nobody doing nothin about any of em that compares to a refugee problem decades away.
Maybe HRW will set up some sort of hypothetical future displaced persons map to go with their real-world current displaced persons map. Maybe we could get a fkn Lancet estimate commissioned on how many million people might die a few decades from now. Sheesh.
Which Pentagon would that be?
I only know of one and they sure as shit couldn't give a toss about climate change in 2007 just like they didn't in 2006 and won't in 2008.
How disconnected from reality would you need to be in 2007 to sift through 50,000 news reports featuring statements from the Pentagon about what they're doing, what threats they are addressing and what they are concerned about and reference this.
So that would be the one Army War College report to go with the 100 they've put out about Iran, the 200 they've put out about North Korea and the 500 about China.
Perspective is what's missing here.
Mike says:
"For the record, I don't hate Gore and I would still like Gore to run for president since he has an excellent voting record as an immigration restrictionist - far better than any of the Republicans or Democrats in the race."
Don't do it Mike. He has the morals of a Colombian drug lord. There are far better liberals to choose from.
Gore traded his vote in Gulf War I in order to get a prime time TV slot for his speech to support the the war. He threatened both parties that he would not vote in favour unless he got the a prime spot. The Dems weren't prepared to give up their time, so the GOP gave up some of their's. Gore was the most Junior senator on the Dem side to get face time.
Here is Ex Senator- Alan Simpson's account:
The following day, Gore arrived on the Senate floor with, I always thought, two speeches in hand. Gore still was waiting to see which side -- Republicans or Democrats -- would offer him the most and the best speaking time. Dole immediately asked the Senate to increase the amount of speaking time for both sides. I believe only then, after Gore realized we were asking for more time to make room for him on our side, that he finally decided to support the resolution authorizing the use of force to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
It brings me no joy to recount the events leading up to the gulf-war vote. It isn't something I wanted to do. But it is something I have to do. I was there.
I have to set the record straight because the Gore campaign is now running an ad proclaiming that Gore "broke with his own party to support the gulf war." In reality, it's much closer to the truth to say he broke for the cameras to support the gulf war.
And I have to set the record straight because the gulf-war vote was far too important an issue to fall victim to politics and repulsive revisionism. It was a moment of challenge and, sadly, Gore was not up to it.
As a member of the Senate for 18 years, I saw many senators show their stuff when times got tough. And, sadly, I saw some who failed to rise to the occasion. In January 1991, Al Gore put politics over principle.
Alan Simpson formerly represented Wyoming in the U.S. Senate.
#39 Kilo, nonsense. I remembered the news reports and googled "Pentagon study climate change." All on the first page. How disconnected from reality are you, to not have heard of Google? Of course Defense Dept. looks seriously at anything that affects the occurrence and conduct of war. Pretty goddamned intelligent people (except for the civilian leadership, it would seem,) that's what we pay them for, and this is what they came up with. And at least one other report on effects to U.S. natural resources, which was censored. Who in these comments argued that it's currently more important than threat of war with Iran? Seriously, how disconnected from reality are you?
#37 "Of course it didn't. You put tags between the quotation marks of the tag. That doesn't work."
No, I didn't use tags. I am using Safari, which usually translates URLs automatically.
JC, you are a truly, deeply gullible man. Republican Al Simpson [simply lies about Gore](http://www.dailyhowler.com/h102400_1.shtml).
Mike C.: got a cite for your Gore-immigration claim?
Here.
You should be aware that the corrupt plutocrats that run a country like Mexico see immigration as a way of siphoning off those they've failed and thus as a way to avoid reform and maintain the status quo. I have yet to see any evidence that immigration from the Third World to the First World has made any Third World country less corrupt. I recommend Lynn and Vanhanen's "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" and David Landes' "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" for an alternative look at what makes poor countries poor.
Tim, I think your trolls certainly aren't gullible. I think they are PAID. There is too much detail in the misinformation. No one goes this far, without starting to understand things better. Now doubtless it is true, that there are Nutty Believers on all subjects under the sun, and more and more of them are also going to find your venue... But on the web we are also going to see a lot more public-relations management by vested interests, both public and private. There will be "nutty" and more-nuanced comments, and they will be carefully written and posted entirely by hired p.r. help. The idea is to encourage others to believe there is a groundswell of opinion, or serious doubt, or perhaps even academic disproof, of various ideas. We saw an onslaught of these comments, particularly about economic policy, before the last U.S. election on Brad DeLong and Mark Thoma, including what appeared to be copying and pasting directly from crib sheets. This is starting to become continuous, and you may depend upon it: Because the better blogs are also read by news reporters looking for research and different angles -- and those reporters reach millions of readers. Just look at the nonsensical comments made on global warming or Iraqi deaths here. It is very highly evolved, very carefully confusing, it uses emotion selectively, it comes out quickly, and it is almost always without citation. This takes a resource base... In a democracy, things are finally decided by people in a polling booth, and there is lots of money involved. Continuous and clever management of public opinion has been a primary objective for over half a century.
There are certainly paid or otherwise self-interested trolls on the 'net, we see them all the time in political forums here in the United States.
But JC? Ha! "misinformation" and "JC" belong in the same sentence, sure, but ... "detail"? Ha! again ...
If he's paid, those who are paying him have truly scraped the bottom of the barrel.
Then you still put <i> tags into the URL, and Safari failed to ignore them.
The original URL has an underline ( _ ) in it. That is the place where the malfunction happened. Maybe it was misread?
"JC, you are a truly, deeply gullible man. Republican Al Simpson"
As against someone who thinks that anyone who has ever worked for a corporation will immediately cascade that person in perpetual suspicion and can never be trusted.
Tim, why do you think government workers always make the best decisions and can change the thermostat?
I've heard rumors that the software behind Scienceblogs translates underscores into italics tags for some reason.
Here's a timely WSJ editorial reminding people what the Nobel Peace Prize is all about and who should be considered next year. Kinda places Gore in proper perspective, hey?
Not Nobel Winners
Some nominees for next year.
Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
In Olso Friday, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was not awarded to the Burmese monks whose defiance against, and brutalization at the hands of, the country's military junta in recent weeks captured the attention of the Free World.
The prize was also not awarded to Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara and other Zimbabwe opposition leaders who were arrested and in some cases beaten by police earlier this year while protesting peacefully against dictator Robert Mugabe.
Or to Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest in Vietnam arrested this year and sentenced to eight years in prison for helping the pro-democracy group Block 8406.
Or to Wajeha al-Huwaider and Fawzia al-Uyyouni, co-founders of the League of Demanders of Women's Right to Drive Cars in Saudi Arabia, who are waging a modest struggle with grand ambitions to secure basic rights for women in that Muslim country.
Or to Colombian President Ãlvaro Uribe, who has fought tirelessly to end the violence wrought by left-wing terrorists and drug lords in his country.
Or to Garry Kasparov and the several hundred Russians who were arrested in April, and are continually harassed, for resisting President Vladimir Putin's slide toward authoritarian rule.
Or to the people of Iraq, who bravely work to rebuild and reunite their country amid constant threats to themselves and their families from terrorists who deliberately target civilians.
Or to Presidents Viktor Yushchenko and Mikheil Saakashvili who, despite the efforts of the Kremlin to undermine their young states, stayed true to the spirit of the peaceful "color" revolutions they led in Ukraine and Georgia and showed that democracy can put down deep roots in Russia's backyard.
Or to Britain's Tony Blair, Ireland's Bertie Ahern and the voters of Northern Ireland, who in March were able to set aside decades of hatred to establish joint Catholic-Protestant rule in Northern Ireland.
Or to thousands of Chinese bloggers who run the risk of arrest by trying to bring uncensored information to their countrymen.
Or to scholar and activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, jailed presidential candidate Ayman Nour and other democracy campaigners in Egypt.
Or, posthumously, to lawmakers Walid Eido, Pierre Gemayel, Antoine Ghanem, Rafik Hariri, George Hawi and Gibran Tueni; journalist Samir Kassir; and other Lebanese citizens who've been assassinated since 2005 for their efforts to free their country from Syrian control.
Or to the Reverend Phillip Buck; Pastor Chun Ki Won and his organization, Durihana; Tim Peters and his Helping Hands Korea; and Liberty in North Korea, who help North Korean refugees escape to safety in free nations.
These men and women put their own lives and livelihoods at risk by working to rid the world of violence and oppression. Let us hope they survive the coming year so that the Nobel Prize Committee might consider them for the 2008 award.
I'll say.
Jc, the editorial you quoted is pretty bad.
if you drop those who were too recent and those who do not fit the "peace" category, you re hardly left with anyone, who "might not survive the next year".
Yep the Bhuddist monks are prety bad lot, Sod. you got'm there. good point.
Thanks for providing another example of Gore Derangement Syndrome for us, JC. The WSJ has it so bad that they didn't even remember that the prize has to go to living people.
And you're arguing that Gore is alive, Tim? That's very funny because the 2000 election was fought on that very question about Gore. There were enough people who thought he wasn't alive but some robot progrmamed by the government that had escaped the lab.
Keep 'em coming, JC. We need lots of examples, because only when we truly understand Gore Derangement Syndrome will we be able to work on a cure.
Tim,
I would like to understand this syndrome. Why do many become apoplectic and incapable of reasoning when the subject is Al Gore? It's weird. Your comments section proves that being intelligent and knowledgeable does not make one immune (I assume Lance and JC and Mike C are intelligent and knowledgeable people--who else reads ScienceBlogs?)
"Your comments section proves that being intelligent and knowledgeable does not make one immune (I assume Lance and JC and Mike C are intelligent and knowledgeable people--who else reads ScienceBlogs?)"
Don't reach that conclusion about me, Daryl. I'm about the stupidest person here.
Only smart people could like Algore. Inferiors could never understand the man's call to Riesling and Merlot.. You need serious high-octane intelligence to appreciate Convenient Untruth.
Yep the Bhuddist monks are prety bad lot, Sod. you got'm there. good point.
please try to not look even more stupid than you are. i didn t say anything that comes even close to that.
the Buddhist monks were a much to recent episode, to make them serious contenders for the 2007 price.
jc,
Sorry if I mischaracterized you.
Daryl, obviously you're inclined to think the best of everyone.
Yes, the WSJ has had a bad case of GDS for many years. It would be interesting to view the archives and see when they first decided he was the second coming of Lenin (hint to someone with an institutional subscription, those with personal subscriptions probably aren't interested).
"Nth Korea, Sudan, Iran, Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma, Palestine, Lebanon, Solomons, Timor. Nigeria, Colombia. Apparently there's nobody doing nothin about any of em that compares to a refugee problem decades away."
They already gave the Peace Prize to Aung San Suu Kyi from Burma, in 1991, and she's pretty much been in house arrest ever since and things haven't changed a bit. The Dalai Lama got one, and while he's a good role model in that he seeks to free Tibet peacefully, he hasn't really made any progress apart from having Richard Gere on speed dial.
Most of the time the Nobel Peace Prize isn't given for accomplished feats, but for strong and productive efforts toward a goal which might not be achieved for a long time, if at all. Which isn't necessarily 'peace' in a narrowly defined sense.
Jesse Walker of the libertarian magazine Reason looked at the past winners of the Peace Prize, all of them, to determine what you have to do to win one. The range is pretty broad, and always has been.
Norman Borlaug won in 1970 for developing a new high-yield strain of wheat. Linus Pauling won for his campaign against above-ground nuclear testing, which isn't really advancing *peace* since nations could still test below ground. There'd just be less radioactive pollution in the air to make people sick.
As Jesse Walker notes, it's more of a Nobel prize for humanitarian endeavors, than a 'peace' prize.
It's really just too dumb for words.
Wow, that WSJ editorial is kristallnacht-worthy. Funny how they become SO interested in oppressed Asian and African folk except when the U.S. and its allies are doing the oppressing.
"Or to Colombian President Ãlvaro Uribe, who has fought tirelessly to end the violence wrought by left-wing terrorists and drug lords in his country."
Yeah well oddly enough being a former militia leader who still supports the use of death squads doesn't really make you Peace Prize material.
What next a nomination for Bin Laden and Mullah Omar who have "fought tirelessly to end the violence wrought by US imperialists and drug lords in Afghanistan."
Don't you just love Jc's consistently intelligent remarks?
Yeah, what do REAL scientists know anyway?
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/00…
"...{We tried for years - decades - to get them to listen to us about climate change. To do that we had to ramp up our rhetoric. We had to figure out ways to tone down our natural skepticism (we are scientists, after all) in order to put on a united face. We knew it would mean pushing the science harder than it should be. We knew it would mean allowing the boundary-pushers on the "it's happening" side free reign while stifling the boundary-pushers on the other side. But knowing the science, we knew the stakes to humanity were high and that the opposition to the truth would be fierce, so we knew we had to dig in. But now they are listening. Now they do believe us. Now they say they're ready to take action. And now we're wondering if we didn't create a monster. We're wondering if they realize how uncertain our projections of future climate are. We wonder if we've oversold the science. We're wondering what happened to our community, that individuals caveat even the most minor questionings of barely-proven climate change evidence, lest they be tagged as "skeptics." We're wondering if we've let our alarm at the problem trickle to the public sphere, missing all the caveats in translation that we have internalized. And we're wondering if we've let some of our scientists take the science too far, promise too much knowledge, and promote more certainty in ourselves than is warranted.}"
Reality Fungus left out a money quote from his source:
Why did you leave that out, Reality Fungus? Is it because the full piece doesn't support the conclusion you want us to draw from your snippet?
You also left out this:
Actually, the quote was selected to respond to this absurd post.
My remarks and the the issue of global warming was never in question, as you are insinuating.
The entire purpose of the aforementioned remarks were to question whether or not the science was being 'oversold.'The author of these remarks makes his beliefs- and the science- quite clear.
Ben says
"Don't you just love Jc's consistently intelligent remarks"
Thanks Ben. I appreciate all positive affirmation thrown my way.
Ben says "Don't you just love Jc's consistently intelligent remarks"
Thanks Ben. I appreciate all positive affirmation thrown my way.
Anyone else find it ironic that it wasn't Ben who said that?
Anyone else find it ironic that it wasn't Ben who said that?
No, not really.
I find it Standard Operating Procedure in Wingnuttia:
Hear what you want to hear.
Others deconstruct poor Jc's comment as necessary.
Best,
D
Best D, John
Err, I was being ironic with the name change, fellas.
Poor Best D, all that's left getting suckered and proving just how shallow an urban "economist" can be
Best D. Question.
Did you think having degrees in urban and agric eco make you a fully fledged economist? Didn't you know you could do economics without the two 1/2s? Lol
Since you apparently had difficulty reading my earlier post, let me try again ...
and you say ...
when what you meant to say was "the quote was mined...", in other words, you cherry-picked part of the statement to make it appear that the author writing it was certain that the science is being oversold, when in reality he's just saying "I heard from some younger scientists, a very small number, not nearly enough to be a stasticially valid sample, that they think that uncertainty is being undersold". Uncertainty in DETAILS, not in whether or not AGW is real. DETAILS, like whether or not the rocky mountain snowpack is diminishing and, if it is, whether or not that is attributable to AGW rather than natural variation.
Stuff like that.
And beyond not making his beliefs clear ... one person's personal opinion does not "make the science clear".
Not that the author's personal opinion is congruent with the impression you're trying to give in the first place ...