NOBEL Phoney PRIZE

The one lie that he told that really irritated me was when he lied about not eating junk food and then some reporter got a picture of him in a McDonalds or something... Anyway it was a fast food place. I could care less what he ate and where, and most likely nobody else cared either. So why did he find it necessary to lie over something that never mattered in the first place?

I very much believe you are right.

The Nobel committee is certainly tainted as to understanding its orginal purpose. Oh, well...

"What I find ironic? Is that the lies are getting people to do things about it." This falls under the categories of "Sad but true." and "Explains why politician lie to us.".

Quoted for truth. Spot on you two. Some don't see it, but there are plenty of cases where facts, cases and misinformation/distortion is used to cull the masses into action or into support of the people doing the distortion.

Much has been said about Gore's personal energy use and how he should practice what he preaches, which I certainly can't argue with that sentiment! However, check out the article below: http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=42745 "As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk (the) walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, identified as a free-market think tank. Gore's power bill shows, however, that the former vice president may be doing just that. Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills. That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources. The green power Gore purchased in those three months is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES' Web site. The Gores' home is also the home offices for both Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, which also explains why the consumption may be higher than that of the average private home. I also must add I'm not sure either what global warming has to do with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Thank you for contributing. I just want to add that its fine to heed climate changes and abnormalities. I only hope you are following it more on your own research and terms rather than follow the screaming nothings that really don't care about the topic. Brave, there are plenty of other scientists and people doing much more for research on this topic, conservation, energy improvement and lots more. Problem is, there are some people who want renewable energy or other energy sources yet vote it down when it goes to their backyards, it happens. Lil, its good to reduce wastes and impacts on the world on a personal level. Collectively the efforts are a bit more noticeable. Note however, the world has incredibly large variables in climate and environment, several which cannot be influenced by man (while of course others do contribute to the contained environment). Heh, sorry to geek it up on your responses. You both take care. Thanks for adding your input.

Anniepa - I just wanted to add that the scientists have also concluded that all of the human activities that contribute to global warming amass to approximately 0.28% of the total warming gases. Additionally, the oceans provide approximately 96% of the number 1 global warming gas - water vapor. The oceans also naturally balance the atmospheric CO2 by releasing and absorbing the CO2 dissolved within them as the atmospheric conditions change. And Mars is simultaneously experiencing global warming. Last I checked, a Hummer doesn't get the necessary mpg to get there. And British scientists have noted that the sun is the hottest it ever been in 11,400 years. I don't know about you, but I have the funny feeling Al Gore is giving us a SNOW job.

Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Yes, there are some very nice, civil, intelligent people on myLot.

Sorry to intrude but I've got to do this "I feel like, by reading this discussion, I have gotten more information in a few minutes than I do on national television. "-[/quote] *waves at GardenGerty* *blushes* You are quite welcome! "I also like the fact that most everyone contributing was able to be civil." -[/quote] Indeed. I think this is one of the best discussions on mylot due to this factor and the other one you mentioned. Thanks again Gerty.

Yes, I am a qualified behavioral scientist. As far as social scientists go, I'm much better mathematically qualified than most. As to global warming, yes it is going on. The last ice age ended only 10,000 years ago. We are still in the warming trend that ended the ice age at that time. It will not peak for another approximately 40,000 years. We know this from looking at the geological record. In the geological record is evidence of a cycle about 100,000 years long. This is not in question. Man's contribution to this trend is insignificant as it existed before modern man. Real scientists who are also honest know this and will admit it. They have admitted it. To find out the truth about man made global warming read the web sites both pro and con. Then compare and evaluate. It is what I did in addition to using my training to understand Al Gore's film.

I did not get an A in my graduate level statistics course but I do know that you can use statistics to show what you want. Remember Mark Twain Statistics never lie and lyers use statistics. As was pointed out we are either in a cooling trend or a warming trend and we can't change that. Al Gore got the Peace Prize be cause he is a nice liberal. I am not sure I would want the Peace Prize when you look at the company Ausar Arafat.

That consensus is actually in question. Just like you say there is a vast majority of scientists saying it, there are also a comparable amount that are not completely agreeing and others who don't believe in Global Warming at all. Also Annie why is it there are such vile attacks and no continued discussion on the subject from those who worship Goreacle? Science is supposed to be hypothesize, observe, collect data, compare data, refine & conclude or rethink the hypothesis depending on the results. But of course, anyone who even tries to question what certain people say are obviously [insert pointless degradation here]. Its supposed to be the true search of knowledge and comparison of new knowledge against existing standards, but some people don't want that at least in this situation. -_- And please spare me any baseless attacks. I do what I can for the environment, so don't even try to classify me in some backwards fashion. Al Gore and the celeb moronathon aren't even close to being scientists either, so again I ask why follow them religiously? Most times they scold others while living a completely different life, and the rest try to use fear tactics (not for the betterment of the world but for power and influence, or to prove said power and influence -_-). I've even posted on a global warming thread using multiple sources just to bring multiple sides to the story. Plus the Earth and Sun have been here way longer than the people, and the Earth has been through major warming, cooling, orbital, tectonic, atmospheric and other environmental changes before complex lifeforms and humans appeared (and its still has some of these variables going on, though to a lesser extent when compared to full planetary geological history). And currently there are still unanswered questions, revised facts, more observations, but don't let that stop anyone. There was the 1934 change in NASA data; differing observations on solar output (some saying less but longer solar cycles point to a different trend); ice shelves in the southern hemisphere reforming (and some in the northern); winds causing some ice melting in areas; ozone observations; and more on top of this I know I might be missing or just not remembering http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1280932.aspx http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383 http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/05/antarctica-warming-cooling-or-both/ http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php http://icecap.us/images/uploads/LINEAR_THING.pdf And is Redyellow a qualified scientist, maybe. Maybe not. But I have seen him in the science threads on mylot along with me Destiny and like two others (yea its that empty -_-). Am I a qualified scientist, maybe. Again, I've posted on some samples of global warming in that discussion. I've also posted on other threads that deal with science when I get the chance. I also frequent multiple science readings and sources for years. Despite all of this, I do it just to give people the information I can find. Because many of the supposed trusted news sources, your faithful & infallible Goreacles, the other empty do as I say not as I do flapping heads and the mindless zealots that follow them all... they won't do it.

What I have to say concerning Al Gore and the IPCC report is more than opinion. There are facts that are wrong in Al Gore's film. (I've seen it twice)The summary of conclusions at the end of the IPCC report do not agree with the data within the report. (I've read it twice.) These are not opinions. They are, if you will, "Inconvenient truths".

Don't forget Occidental Petroleum and the reasonable conflict of interest questions about carbon offsets and carbon lifestyles. Of course those are harder to find in the alphabet soup media and even some internet sources (so only those really paying attention would really have a clue on it and the things you mentioned.)

A couple of other people in recent memory didn't deserve it either but still got them anyways. And I forget if W got one, I don't think he did. Might have been nominated or something http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize#Laureates http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/