How does global warming = a peace prize? Nothing like starting a good argument. I agree with one thing Gore says. We need to protect our environment and conserve natural resources. I still don't fully believe that we are in global warming. The earths average tempature has gone up and down over numerous decades. Next year might be a down turn and we will be talking about the return of the ice age. Hell, the all the weather people were predicting a huge hurricane season. WRONG. If they can't predict 3 or 4 months in advance, how can they predict global warming. I better be careful, Al Gore invented the internet and I might lose my privleges to post here.

global warming or not, the ever growing human population + increased demand for oil = shrinking oil natural resources = war.

the world has taken on the mindset of excess, and that kind of mindset isn't good for us.

Well at least this wasn't completely a thread about how global warming isn't real.. that's what I was afraid of when I saw the topic, next I'd have to read that evolution isn't real. They aren't predicting Global Warming to the day like they are the weather.. you can predict that the seasons are coming, can't you? It's an estimate, it's not like he laid down a 10 day forecast of global warming.

Maybe it's a slow year in the peace business.. it's not like anyone has ended the war the US is in, or anyone stopped the violence in Darfur.

weather is cyclical, end of story...where is my f'in peace prize...I'm about to f*** somebody up.....

Gore is to be praised for addressing a serious issue that is affecting people around the globe in a thoughtful way.

Whatever you want to call it, our climate has changed. I'm as old if not older than most of U who post here. I was around for the cold and snowy winters of the 60's and late 70's. My better half is from southern Illinois and she tells me the winters we've had in metro Chicago the past 10 years remind here of winters in that part of the state, not the northern Illinois winters she had experienced in the 1980's.

Lakes in the southeastern US (Lake Lanier, GA) are drying up as is Lake Powell, AZ. Lanier supplies most of Atlanta's drinking water and if they don't get significant rain it's going to dry up by Christmas. Georgia hasn't had measurable rainfall in the last 3 months, that's not normal.

kingbutter Wrote:weather is cyclical, end of story...where is my f'in peace prize...I'm about to f*** somebody up.....

You get the "dumb*** in science" prize. Why? Because you don't even know the difference between weather and climate. Lets be honest. If you can't differentiate between the 2 you should not even comment on the subject. Period. End 'O Subject.

Fact: CO2 is a green house gas.

Fact: Green House gases keep heat in the atmosphere.

Fact: CO2 levels are increasing.

Unknown: The exact reaction of the climate. hotter? wetter? drier? where?

RobertN Wrote:

kingbutter Wrote:weather is cyclical, end of story...where is my f'in peace prize...I'm about to f*** somebody up.....

You get the "dumb*** in science" prize. Why? Because you don't even know the difference between weather and climate. Lets be honest. If you can't differentiate between the 2 you should not even comment on the subject. Period. End 'O Subject.

let me correct it for him then, climate is cyclical. I'm pretty sure people didn't case any of the previous ice ages to start nor end. Each of those happened to to non-human intervention. The facts are that temp records for more than 100 or so years ago are incomplete at best, inaccurate due to instrumentation, or non-existant at worst. The temps from 1400 are inferred by looking at ice, well you can't tell 12.2 egrees from 13 degrees by the ice. It's estimates of past climate that are being used against facts about the current climate. Is it warmer not than 200 years ago, maybe, probably even. Could it be because we are at or near the natural high point of the warm cycle between ice ages?

How can a sane man even argue that man doesn't have an influence on our environment? I don't argue that climate naturally changes...but there hasn't been any other carbon based terrestrial influence like man until now. You are an idiot and a mouthpiece for whatever group you are sleeping with.

I had this argument over the weekend and all I have to say is that Al Gore wasn't given the Nobel Peace Prize by a bunch of idiots. I'm sure whoever voted on the award is highly distinguished and very intelligent.

armour248 Wrote:I had this argument over the weekend and all I have to say is that Al Gore wasn't given the Nobel Peace Prize by a bunch of idiots. I'm sure whoever voted on the award is highly distinguished and very intelligent.

Of course they aren't idiots. I have heard many people wonder how this could be a peace prize winner when it doesn't have to do with peace. It makes sense that when climate in one area changes and can't support itself they would fight others that do have the resources to acquire them. Happens all the time. This would just be more widespread.

niuguy Wrote:How can a sane man even argue that man doesn't have an influence on our environment? I don't argue that climate naturally changes...but there hasn't been any other carbon based terrestrial influence like man until now. You are an idiot and a mouthpiece for whatever group you are sleeping with.

who me? I didn't saw we don't have an impact. I just, as a scientist, can't believe that we are *responsible* for whatever change there might be. There is no way to know that it is actually hotter now than it was 20,000 years ago. People can infer things, but the change that is being talked about is not big and using inferences for your baseline is bad science. The numbers for the last 100 years should be relatively good, but any change over the last 100 years could be natural just as easily as man made. Is it better to be safe than sorry, sure, but there's no need to act like chicken little about it. And it is true that livestock generate more CO2 than cars. I'll give up my car before I give up bacon and steak though. The amount of livesock is a human based influence, maybe we should get rid of animals.
From the EPA website "Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources." Maybe we should also get rid of mexican food and white castle too.

RobertN Wrote:

armour248 Wrote:I had this argument over the weekend and all I have to say is that Al Gore wasn't given the Nobel Peace Prize by a bunch of idiots. I'm sure whoever voted on the award is highly distinguished and very intelligent.

Of course they aren't idiots. I have heard many people wonder how this could be a peace prize winner when it doesn't have to do with peace. It makes sense that when climate in one area changes and can't support itself they would fight others that do have the resources to acquire them. Happens all the time. This would just be more widespread.

Unfortunately, the Noble Peace Prize has been highly politicized for many years now. Some Prizes, like Economics, tend to be very results oriented, but others awards, in my opinion are a bit suspect.