Will Gore get Nobel next week? Some think so.

for climate? or for inventing the internet.

(I know what his actual claim to the internet is)

I do not think that politicians such as Gore should not taint the value of the Nobel prize.

But people can think about it is ok, as long as its not for spin for Al Gore.

The only prize he should receive is a pair of jack ass ears.

What a farce if he wins news casters should be next on the list of winners. He did nothing about the issue, continues to do nothing about the issue, has no plans to correct the problem only techno-speak, that he picked up from a staffer. If he wins the award it will lose any of it prestige for real accomplishments. They will next give the prize for Fidelity to Clinton

I disagree. Al Gore has been campaigning to raise awareness about global warming since the 80s. Now that people are accepting global warming as a reality its only right that he be rewarded for his efforts.

This award is an acknowledgement of his tireless efforts to bring awareness of Global warming to the mainstream. I commend his efforts and I'll be happy if he wins the Nobel Peace Prize. The man is a great American.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/record-temperatures-in-arctic-heatwave-1115116.html

Hello Rodger,

That is possible, there is an awareness on global warming, and when spoken Al Gore comes to mind.

The problem I see is, depending on where you stand and who's reports or documents one reads or believes, it is confusing.

But to be reconized just for someone to make people aware? awarding him a nobel prize or being reconized by the Nobel committee, on something that is not defined or proven. I do not think thats right, and can be an embarressment.

I do not think Nobel comittee has an awareness award. Humanities?

Just because he's political, he should not be given a free pass, they should make him wait until it's proven, like the pass recipents.

The point I was trying to make is a committee such as Nobel should not be used for agendas, personal or political.

phoenix911

You wrote "The problem I see is, depending on where you stand and who's reports or documents one reads or believes, it is confusing."

Implicit in your statement is the premise that all reports and documents are of the same quality and should be considered equally. This premise is never true. Therefore the conclusion "it is confusing" is the result of your faulty premise, not any real confusion regarding the subject.

There is concensus in the scientific community regarding global warming. It is known that the Earth is warming and it is known that the cause is man-made. I know many don't believe this, I don't know what to say to them, if you understand statistics, you understand this is true.

You Wrote: "I do not think Nobel committee has an awareness award. Humanities?"

Of course they do. Awarding Al Gore for bringing awareness to the global warming problem, which effects the poorer regions of the planet more because of their lack or resources to adapt to a changing climate, ultimately will save lives. This is because the sooner we realize we have a problem and admit it, the sooner we can act to limit greenhouse emissions and reduce the longterm damage thus saving lives. The peace prize is about saving lives and that is what Al Gore's efforts amount to.

Roger Pink--

The statement, "The problem I see is, depending on where you stand and who's reports or documents one reads or believes, it is confusing." is a subjective statement, not an objective one. To me, your criticism is poorly placed. No matter how much documentation or carefully researched data one presents, some people will be unable or unwilling to recognize the answer. In other cases, people who are vocal but wrong in their view can confuse the debate for others, particularly when these others do not have a solid grounding in the science involved. The topic is confusing to many; but this should be an opportunity to thoughtfully educate and find out what needs to be done to clarify the rhetoric. Perhaps, pointing out examples of why certain people deny or question the significance of global warming will help a lot.

On another side, I could name certain recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize whose actions and personal views are contradictory to the public stance for which they have been recognized. That, however, does not diminish the purpose of the award as set up by Alfred Nobel.

--JMM

JMueller,

That wasn't my statement. In the future, please read my comment before you respond to it.

Roger Pink

Roger--

I knew that wasn't your statement. I was responding to the comment you made on that statement. To me, your comment appeared to be treating that statement as an objective statement (which can be checked and verified by observation, by the "scientific method"), instead of treating that statement as a subjective one (which is subject to the person's own opinions, knowledge, experience, viewpoint, etc.) I apologize for not making this clearer in my post.

Regards--JMM

thank you, for that objective statement,

So then you do believe that Global warming is an established fact?

No I can not say that, nor can I say it isn't. I made it clear that the information can make it go both sides. And I do not care to waste time playing symantics.

But if you would like to campaign for Al Gore that's fine, just not on this site. I am sure there are other sites for that.

And if you like to continue about global warming. Stop generalizing with unnamed scientific commitees and start backing it up. I'll do what I can to prove the opposite, Not because that is my postition. But to demostrate what has been posted to as to information being contradictory.

Are you understanding that there are different veiwpoints being suggested here and not singleminded personal agendas.

The issue being discussed here as I understood it was "Is Al Gore deserving of a Noble Peace prize".

I say yes because Al Gore has been raising awareness regarding global warming since the 1980s. As global warming is scientifically proven it is only a matter of raising the public's awareness so that action can be taken. It is important that action be taken to mitigate the damage that will occur by a shifting global climate. Especially because this is most likely to effect the poor the most because they don't have the resources to adjust to rapidly changing climate conditions.

You say that this stance is political. You say that global warming isn't proven. You say a politician shouldn't be eligable for a nobel peace prize (despite the fact that so many past winners have in fact been politicians.

You suggest Global Warming isn't a fact yet, that the jury still isn't out. You belittle Al Gore's attempts at raising awareness as politically motivated which happily ignores the fact that through the 80s and 90s his attempts to raise awareness hurt his political aspirations. There seems to be a lot of bile in your supposedly "even handed" responses. I don't think you're fooling anyone. You are the one with the political agenda.

Its not Al Gore I am belittling

it's would be the people that back him and using themselves as a conduit for him to be recognized for something he as yet to be deserved, that talent is better off served if not elsewhere, but to where the field they have specialized in. But ego's can affect common sense.

I am glad that you are now positioning yours as a opinion on what he has accomplished. And what he accomplish for recognition of global warming.

And yes, Politicians can be a likely source for the peace prize.

You Wrote "for something he as yet to be deserved"

In your opinion. Your misguided opinion based on a irrational disbelief in global warming. And you never answered my question.

Do you, or do you not believe in evolution?

Roger I was on vacation, and having life (sometimes) and could not respond.

Yes I believe in evolution, Al Gore won it, on his awareness to global warming, not his of facts, but making people aware of global warming, by the way Roger, there is even conflict on I do not know if there are facts or statements of what will happens when global warmings between Al Gore and the UN's IPCC, since there is conflict within, I would not call these facts.

I do not know why you think I do not believe in global warming, I just can not get complete comformation of it. I can read blogs but they can be no more than an opinion.

Al Gore won the Nobel Peace prize hopefully not to legitimize his claim to global warming. Good for Al.

There have been allot of deserving people that received this award, but Al Gore shares it with Yasser Arafat also a past winner.

This is the point I am getting across that your not getting about the Nobel Peace Prize.

Tell me Pheonix. What would be acceptable evidence for you that:

1. There is Global Warming

2. Man is the cause

What would it take for you to believe for certain, or relatively certain, since technically we can't be certain of anything absolutely.

My posts really do not go one way or the other. If it was about some politician who was nominated for his work on global Cooling, I would have questioned that.

As far as evidence to global warming, cooling, who's at fault? At this point I am aware, that is all.

This was not the reason I put my comment to this blog. Its having or using an organization trying validate ones belief. As far as evidence, its circumstances because your posts states just that.

"What would it take for you to believe for certain, or relatively certain, since technically we can't be certain of anything absolutely."

And by trying to convince the undecided, by talking down to them, intimidating them, or just trying to tear apart their comments by using semantics, is weak.

I have to say, which you have pointed out, I called items facts, which they should not have been and should be called. Evidence that points to global warming. One thing that is confusing. This evidence has been presented as facts, and that is the confusing part. I did not help it, in making that clear.

And frankly, it is more tiring to explain ones self to this, say, to you for example and how I see it, instead of convincing the undecided, I myself would rather stay outside your circle.

And be aware of the concerns on global warming. Another thing, on an earlier post, you asked if I believed in evolution.

This may be philosophical (which I don't care for much), but think about this. Maybe global warming is part of the evolution. And we as humans are not part of it…………

one more thing, Roger its phoenix911.

thanks,

phoenix911

Phoenix911,

Who are you kidding. You started all of this by saying Al Gore should not be rewarded when the theory is questionable. In your own words....

"But to be recognized just for someone to make people aware? awarding him a nobel prize or being recognized by the Nobel committee, on something that is not defined or proven. I do not think thats right, and can be an embarrassment."

Those are your words. You clearly state that you don't think he should get the prize because the theory is unproven. It has been that response that I have been speaking to this entire time.

I think its despicable that in your last couple of posts you have attacked me for trying to address this. Claiming I'm intolerant and hateful merely because I wont indulge your fanciful interpretation of the truth. You twist and squirm in your arguments like a snake and then question my integrity. Seriously, who do you think your fooling?

Roger,

your comment;

"since technically we can't be certain of anything absolutely."

Why are you so certain.

you do not get the point, nor will you.

As an engineer, if I do not know the answer, I will not give an answer, unlike yourself who feels when asked, you have to give an answer wether you know it or not.

As far as attacks to you I took a stand as undecided, and being undecided I can not give you an answer, you can read as much into it as you want,

What is the truth? or is there........ so campaign else where.

Global Warming is proven, that is the heart of our disagreement. You say it isn't, I say it is. You call me intolerant cause I don't share your view, I call you dumb because you don't agree with mine. Nobody has the high ground here man, despite your best efforts to twist this argument into character assination as opposed to facts on global warming.

"Global Warming is proven, that is the heart of our disagreement."

no it was for Al Gore being Nominated for the peace prize.

your comment;

"Nobody has the high ground here man,"

my point exactly, I was wrong, I think you do get it

And bascally what you said about me. grow up

Global warming is definitely a fact. What is not established is that mankind's input to the issue is a major one. That is not an established fact. In fact it is arrogant to assume that we have a controlling impact.

You Wrote "In fact it is arrogant to assume that we have a controlling impact."

This is absolute nonsense, of course we are responsible. Take a hard look at this graph of CO2 in air going back 400,000 years (this was taken from ice core samples in antarctica)

I want you to notice that the CO2 levels in the past 450,000 years have not exceeded 300 ppm. Notice also that temperature tracks exactly with CO2 levels. Do you know what our CO2 levels are today?

Our CO2 levels today are 385 ppm. See graph below:

Statistically this it is just about impossible that this is a natural phenomenon which means that the increases in the CO2 levels are due to man, not nature along with the corresponding increase in temperature.

So no, it isn't arrogance that says that global warming is caused by man, its science.

I want to commend you on your efforts in the third world. Also, I pretty much accept that I don't have a chance of convincing anyone of anything here, I just post because when I see four negative posts against Al Gore who has done nothing other than try to help people, well, I feel I should balance the discussion.

If you're interested in a real discussion on the matter, I'll be happy to discuss the matter by CR4 email. I've found much of the misconception regarding the extent of human responsibility for globalwarming comes from the fact that people fail to realize that we are only talking about the thin layer of air that sits right above the surface of the Earth, not the entire planet.

I second your motion Roger. I the general zeal to salvage our precious planet, we tend to loose sight of some basics.

It may be in good intention, but being out of proportions is a trait of the hysterical and the misleading.

No one wants that. Things being bad enough as they are.

I just wish people would stop reciting talking points like they are established facts and do a little research themselves. It really comes down to laziness. Nobody wants to put the effort in anymore. I'd rather be debating the merits of a carbon trading system (or lack thereof), or the prospects of solar power, or fusion power. Or whether rain at the north pole is significant or irrelevant.

What I can't abide the most, what I despise to my soul, are those that promote extremist irrational views in nice kind way, as if how you say something is more important than what you say. This thread is full of hate and bile hiding behind a thin facade of reasonable discourse. Science doesn't have a chance in this discussion.

Of course it is reasonable to say someone is more deserving than Al Gore for the nobel peace prize, I mean, who doesn't feel that way? But to attack this man, who has worked so hard and fought so long for environmental awareness, well that's just wrong.

Roger,

That is valid data you have on the graphs. There is a modest amount of uncertainty in the data because while the snow layer is still fairly fresh and uncompacted, the researchers have noted that there is some diffusion of the gases from one layer to another. I don't know how many years' uncertainty this may give to the data.

I believe that the data, particularly when graphed on a longer time scale, shows the CO₂ levels rising or falling after the temperature has risen or fallen, instead of before! The common premise in the global warming debate is that the CO₂ levels are the driving factor, but the data don't support this view. Possible explanations are: 1) The dates for one of the two sets of data are incorrect because of some unrecognized problem, and the CO₂ levels are really driving the temperature, or 2) The two are both related to some other driving force, and their historical relationship is either circumstantial or of a secondary importance, or 3) There is insufficient data.

All of those questions or explanations are the proper province of science. I have seen a graph of the temperature and CO₂ data, but with the insolation (rate of solar energy reaching the earth's surface) also on the same graph. The rate was taken by assuming the average output of solar energy, the "solar constant", to be constant for the 400,000 year history of the data and then calculating the effects of wobble, tilt, and eccentricity of the earth's orbit. These three different orbital mechanisms are all repeating, but with different time constants. This graph suggests that the historical record of the warming and CO₂ is significantly influenced by changes in solar radiation levels.

Now, to the current trends on your second graph. If the historical data do show CO₂ trailing temperature, then the current trend of a rapid CO₂ increase cannot be interpreted strictly (from the 400,000 year Vostok ice core samples' data) to predict a warming trend. We do have pretty good recent data of a warming trend, along with many alarming concerns about loss of glaciers, changes in rainfall patterns, creeping of habitat to hither elevations, increasing severity of storms. Since CO₂ is known to absorb long-wave IR radiation from the earth, it will decrease the loss of heat and thus can cause temperature rises. I believe most people will agree that portion is well-established. With these changes will be changes in the albedo of the earth's surface, particularly where loss of ice occurs. This will increase the absorption of solar energy more than it increases the radiation of it.

We get to the problem when we try to interpret these data, particularly with a very complex system such as the earth.

The CO₂ levels are the highest known in over 400,000 years. Will this change our climate?--probably yes. Will this be harmful?--probably yes. Should we be concerned?--I think yes. Should we take steps now to decrease production of CO₂?--yes. Should we consider the question settled and complete?--no. Can this be a pending emergency or catastrophe?--I don't know, but I would rather take the cautious approach and prepare for it, or attempt to prevent the outcome.

I appreciate the differing viewpoints I am reading on this forum. I would appreciate it even more if the wording of some responses (not pointing this to you, Roger) were to be more conciliatory. Discourse, even among scientists, has often been very sharp and even filled with vitriol. Do I think that Al Gore has helped us with the views he has raised?--yes. Is this worthy of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?--probably no. And that brings us back to the topic of the original post.

--JMM

JMM,

CO2 reflects Infrared radiation, which corresponds to the vibrational frequencies of molecules (i.e. heat), back to the surface of the Earth. If there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, more infrared is reflected back to the Earth and the IR is absorbed resulting in increased heating. It is Exactly, Exactly the same mechanism that causes a car sitting in the sun to heat up. CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than air, meaning it hugs the surface forming a blanket over the surface, which is good, because if it didn't, the average surface temperature of the Earth would be much lower.

The reason why the CO2 comes after warming in the past is because it is a feedback mechanism. The distance of the earth from the sun coupled with the precession of the Earths rotation creates a cyclic change in average distance of the Earth from the Sun(and a cyclic orientation of the northern hemisphere with respect to direct sunlight which matters since that is where the majority of land is). The change in distance results in a cyclic change in the incident radiation on the Earths surface (the closer you are the more energy hits the Earths surface). In the past, as the Earth heated up due to these orbital oscillations, CO2 levels increased as carbon that had been trapped in permafrost, tundra, and ice were released into the atmosphere. This increase in CO2 trapped heat which then accelerated the melting which accelerated the CO2 released (feedback). The result was a sudden and violent shift in temperatures (which can be seen by the sharp acceleration of the peaks in the graphs. That's why CO2 peaks trail temperature peaks. Your conclusions on it are just your complete misunderstanding of the mechanism involved.

By the way, 3/4 or the earth is water, which has a heat capacity 4 times that of dry land, so it takes years of this feedback mechanism going full tilt before you notice a difference, but when it comes, it comes dramatically and is basically irreversible. If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today it will take 100s of years at least for the acceleration to SLOW Down. The game is over, you just really don't realize this yet.

Listen to me. I have nothing against you guys but what you're saying is completely and utterly wrong. You are mistaking your misconceptions for debate. You guys are probably very smart on a lot of things, for sure, but this is not one of them.

The debate on Global Warming is over. The new debate casting doubt on the human influence is politically motivated to avoid the costs associated with capping emissions . Scientists know its man-made.

I'm sorry you don't understand this, I really am. I'm sorry that you think that its this mysterious complex system, it really isn't. You don't want to believe, that's fine, but don't expect me to take that position any more seriously than I do the creationists "debate" against evolution.

The tendency to over-complicate the issues, is a sign for the need to leave the debate on human impact open to any wild future misinterpretation, suitable for the then-relevant, arbitrary political economic or industrial whim.

Not that it's done on purpose or in a calculated manner, it's just a kind of ignorant denial. Part of human nature, as a trait which made us crap the environment in the first place.

I agree Yuval (I completely agree, you phrased it perfectly), but there is a part of me that wants to believe that deep down these guys know the truth and if they just could get past that denial (a perfectly normal human defense mechanism) they'd be better for it. I'm wrong all the time, but I was taught when you're wrong you admit it but when you're right you tell people, you don't try to protect their feelings because ultimately that does more harm in the long run. At times I've labelled 'hostile' or 'a jerk' for this, but from my perspective, too many people compromise their principles too often (including myself).

There is definitely a nobility to being able to swallow your pride and compromise, but when you make a habit of compromising, when the goal becomes civility instead of truth, then you're on a path of good intentions, and we all know where that leads.

JMM,

The original statement was:

"The problem I see is, depending on where you stand and who's reports or documents one reads or believes, it is confusing.

But to be reconized just for someone to make people aware? awarding him a nobel prize or being reconized by the Nobel committee, on something that is not defined or proven. I do not think thats right, and can be an embarressment"

Please note the last part "on something that is not defined or proven"

Phoenix911 is not being subjective, there is a definitive statement of fact:

"on something that is not defined or proven".

This fact is based upon the premise "There is conflicting data". Therefore it is perfectly ok for me to attack the premise in order to refute the argument.

Regards,

Roger

This fact is based upon the premise "There is conflicting data". Therefore it is perfectly ok for me to attack the premise in order to refute the argument.

I may have a weakness of driving my point across for listing my opinion but Your attacking with what? semantics?

No, semantics would be "There is conflicting data". No I wrote a three blog series on this here on CR4 with facts. I've already mentioned this but you chose to ignore it. Your denial of globalwarming is politically motivated, pure and simple. Afterall, if you admit its happening, then you have to admit you were wrong in the past, and you're not willing to do that (even though who cares, we're all wrong in the past about some things).

Do you believe in evolution?

Your response to my statement "Implicit in your statement is the premise that all reports and documents are of the same quality and should be considered equally."

You made clear your stance of your views, but both views should at least be considered without bestowing Al Gore with of all things, a Nobel Prize.

Your comment;

"There is concensus in the scientific community regarding global warming. It is known that the Earth is warming and it is known that the cause is man-made. I know many don't believe this, I don't know what to say to them, if you understand statistics, you understand this is true."

Couple of questions here, one is consensus in the scientific community, is this the same community that only takes your viewpoint, and the second question.

How far back do your Statistics go? Sounds like enough to endorse Mr. Gore.

When I stated awareness award, that was done a tongue in cheek as in stretching it.

I was under the understanding that the Nobel Prize gets awarded to establish work, not speculation. And calling and singling out, Al Gore a great American as a defense, please Rodger, as an American I am proud of this country's diversity, singling out an individual that is also a politician such as Al Gore should be restrained on a site such as CR4, but then this is a forum.

Should the opponents find an equal well known image to speak on their behave? and have this site change from an engineering and informative one to a political debate.

Let me reiterate, I read, and I'm going to call them claims, (and claims I mean reports and documents ) that state if we do not control the amount of carbon dioxide into the air the earth will have a run away greenhouse effect.

There is also claims that the earth goes through periods of heating and cooling with the weather being cyclic. And we are just on a uphill curve of the cycle.. With the reports stating that the amounts of emissions that are released into the atmosphere will only slightly postpone the inevitable of the next ice age.

I well support this with documentation as well as you can also. But I am looking at this only as a difference of opinions, My of which I hold in reserve to the outcome of the climate because frankly I can not find the evidence either way.

And the Statement

"The peace prize is about saving lives and that is what Al Gore's efforts amount to."

What manner did you weight that against the others being considered?

Now back to my point of this blog, which is Politics should not have a play to the Nobel Committee.

And that is my opinion.

phoenix911

First of all, my name is Roger, not Rodger.

Secondly, so much for your statement being subjective.

Thirdly, I wrote a three part series in this forum years ago on global warming, feel free to read it.

Lastly, I'm sorry you don't believe, its kind of sad, but its your life.

I am soory that I offended you Roger with my less than perfect keyboard.

Yes, I'll read it.

"Lastly, I'm sorry you don't believe, its kind of sad, but its your life."

You should not take things personal or look down at someone just because they do not agree with your position.

Because the point I was getting on this blog is the point of how the Nobel Prize should not be taken lightly due to political or personal agendas

Many people campaign on a variety of issues: campaigning for free school milk; a new bypass around a city; to keep a hospital open.... but that doesn't qualify them to receive a nobel prize.

However, if we want to devalue the Nobel Prize, I agree that Al Gore should receive it.

How inappropriate that - for example - some of the scientists who have lived and worked in the Antarctic for protracted periods and who are the true researchers in this field should receive accolades for their sacrifice and diligence. Or the visionaries who are working strenuously to create hybrid engines which are environmentally friendly - God forbid they should be awarded anything.

No, what we really need is awards to be given to hangers-on, self-publicists "campaigners" and other REMFs.

Please, somebody bring me a bucket, I think I'm going to hurl. The guy is has a part in a bad movie. He burns multiple times the energy of the average American running his house. He soothes his conscience by buying carbon credits, and this rates him a Nobel prise? I guess anyone can be nominated, but if he wins, the Nobel Prise becomes a joke.

hello, sda1950

I did not want to use his contradictory actions to his beliefs, such as him jet hopping to spread the word about everybody (or everybody except A.G.) that you need to be more conservative about using carbon fuels.

As easy as it is I would like to try to keep it on the topic as stated with the Nobel committee.

(as passionate as subscribers and guests cr4 has, I think it will go off on a tangent)

and your comment;

"I guess anyone can be nominated, but if he wins, the Nobel Prise becomes a joke."

That is exactly the point I wanted to get accross, of the pretigous Nobel Prize being tainted. They have come this far and long with awarding consistantly to merit.

It worries me even when its brought up.

phoenix911

It's like, I should get a Nobel Prize for not getting a Nobel Prize all these years, and not raising hell about it !

And what's that?
- Nobel Prize for peace, or Nobel Prize for patience?

Al Gore is a true American, we Chinese very like him, if he lead the USA, I think the reputation of US should be much better than today.

Friends, please don't deny it!

He is a good politician or statesman, But, he need time to be proven as a Nobel candidate.

Please pass the bucket.... The man is full of hot air (which contributes to global warming). He can't even keep his kid straight, yet alone a country.

Global warming has been in discussion for years now, Ole Al has jumped on the wagon purely for political reasons. Al receiving the Nobel for this would be like Clinton being nominated Pope. John Melloncamp would be better suited for the Nobel with his bringing the nations attention to the plight of the American farmers.

I like to think all americans are true americans,

But I am pleased that you understand that he needs a good politician or statesman does not make him a expert in global warming, that needs to be proven

Al Gore won it. He will donate his winnings to charity.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/12/nobel.gore/index.html