What Do You Think of Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize?
10-13-2007, 07:17 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: 07-21-2006
Location: Ft Walton Bch FL
Posts: 1,708
What Do You Think of Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize?
I live in a very republican, active duty and retired military community. Our local paper has a section where you can post comments and they all made fun of him. One questioned what global warming had to do with peace.
ABC News gave a much different perspective on their report last night. They talked about how Gore has championed protecting the earth for many years. This was nothing new. Maybe the Nobel committee awarded him the prize for sticking to his life-long believes and for actually doing something rather than just talking about it. That's something we don't see from most politicians!
ABC News gave a much different perspective on their report last night. They talked about how Gore has championed protecting the earth for many years. This was nothing new. Maybe the Nobel committee awarded him the prize for sticking to his life-long believes and for actually doing something rather than just talking about it. That's something we don't see from most politicians!
10-13-2007, 09:54 AM
#2
Banned
Join Date: 08-25-2007
Location: Myrtle Beach SC
Posts: 488
When Gore stops polluting the air with his Gulfstream and lives in a home that does not require energy to heat and cool rooms he does not need, I'll listen to him. It takes a lot of arrogance to assume man can control God...who IS mother nature to many.
What does peace have to do with Al Gore?
What does peace have to do with Al Gore?
10-13-2007, 09:58 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-20-2006
Location: Centralia, Missouri
Posts: 1,707
How do I say this without stirring up a hornets nest. I guess if you want to say he deserves the award for sticking to his guns then I'll give you that, however I can not say that global warming is something that I believe we as a people are causing, if it is happening at all. There is scientific evidence to back up both sides, yet those who are believers don't want you to know the facts that do not support their side, which is very fishy to me. If we, as a people are causing global warming, why is mars and the moon also warming? Could it be our climate is controlled more by the sun than our SUVs? I think so. If you look back at patterns, the Earth goes through warming and cooling periods frequently, and the weather we are experiencing is nothing that hasn't happened before. Take hurricanes for example. There was a much more active hurricane period during the 20's and 30's than now, yet there wee no Suvs then. We had a very active year in 2005, yet the last two have been very slow, even though the "experts" were predicting "total devastation". Also, recently scientists have said that CFC's and freon are not as harmful as originally thought, so we ditched the old R-12 freon for no reason for the less effective R-135A, at a cost to us the consumer. And is someone going to seriously tell me using hair spray is damaging the O-zone? I don't believe it. I don't think we as a people could damage the earth if we tried. Mother nature is much too powerful for us to have the ability to destroy it. Sure we could destroy ourselves, but the Earth would move on and flourish. It don't think it is delicate and balanced, but rather powerful and diverse. In short, I don't believe global warming is anything but a way for some to raise taxes and limit the free market and capitalism. After all, these same people that are crying global warming were screaming about global cool and the coming ice age just 20 short years ago. What changed? I don't blame people for joining the global warming movement, it's a scary thing to think we are going to destroy the only known inhabitable place we can survive, but I would urge all to research on their own, and not to take the politician's word as gospel. Look at the evidence on BOTH sides, throw in some common sense and make up your own mind. Sorry for the LONG post, but as you can see, I have some very strong feelings on this issue.
10-13-2007, 10:34 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-26-2007
Location: ...
Posts: 1,554
mizzou, please then explain why there is 30% more carbon dioxide in the air today than there was in pre-industrial era. Also please explain why the ocean at the southern pole regions has reached a saturation point for carbon dioxide absorption (i.e. it can't hold any more) that is unprecedented.
Take a look at these US Gov't figures on global carbon emissions and tell me that you honestly believe that the intricate balance established by "mother nature" isn't thrown off by some 26.9 BILLION tons of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere per year:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html
Note that 26.9 is 2004 alone. It rises steadily each year. A ton of a gas such as CO2 is a large volume to begin with. 26.9 billion is a staggering number. And this is from modern day human activity. Kind of backs up the ice core studies that found we now have 30% more carbon dioxide in the air than before industrial times.
Your statement that "mother nature" can handle anything humans throw at it sounds like a head-in-the-sand stance made in defense of an all too dear status quo we all currently enjoy.
The troposphere is all we have to support life on Earth as far as the atmosphere goes. And within the troposphere the air starts getting "thin" above about 12,000' above sea level. That's one reason the FAA requires supplemental oxygen in aircraft flying above 12,000 feet (FAR part 121 sec 329). So, that means that for the average human, "normal" breathable air is limited to 0 - 12,000 feet.
Do you have any concept of how thin of a ribbon of normal "breathing air" that is covering the Earth's surface? And its okay by you to pump some 27 billion tons of non-breathable gas into that thin frail ribbon annually? (actually if you read the gov't link the emissions are forecast to increase to 33.9 billion metric tons in 2015 and 42.9 billion metric tons in 2030).
Sorry, I have strong feelings on this topic too. I prefer to err on the side of caution and accept the research of thousands of Ph.D climatologists worldwide instead of just denying the problem because it means I might have to change my lifestyle some.
Take a look at these US Gov't figures on global carbon emissions and tell me that you honestly believe that the intricate balance established by "mother nature" isn't thrown off by some 26.9 BILLION tons of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere per year:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html
Note that 26.9 is 2004 alone. It rises steadily each year. A ton of a gas such as CO2 is a large volume to begin with. 26.9 billion is a staggering number. And this is from modern day human activity. Kind of backs up the ice core studies that found we now have 30% more carbon dioxide in the air than before industrial times.
Your statement that "mother nature" can handle anything humans throw at it sounds like a head-in-the-sand stance made in defense of an all too dear status quo we all currently enjoy.
The troposphere is all we have to support life on Earth as far as the atmosphere goes. And within the troposphere the air starts getting "thin" above about 12,000' above sea level. That's one reason the FAA requires supplemental oxygen in aircraft flying above 12,000 feet (FAR part 121 sec 329). So, that means that for the average human, "normal" breathable air is limited to 0 - 12,000 feet.
Do you have any concept of how thin of a ribbon of normal "breathing air" that is covering the Earth's surface? And its okay by you to pump some 27 billion tons of non-breathable gas into that thin frail ribbon annually? (actually if you read the gov't link the emissions are forecast to increase to 33.9 billion metric tons in 2015 and 42.9 billion metric tons in 2030).
Sorry, I have strong feelings on this topic too. I prefer to err on the side of caution and accept the research of thousands of Ph.D climatologists worldwide instead of just denying the problem because it means I might have to change my lifestyle some.
10-13-2007, 11:04 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-20-2006
Location: Centralia, Missouri
Posts: 1,707
mizzou, please then explain why there is 30% more carbon dioxide in the air today than there was in pre-industrial era. Also please explain why the ocean at the southern pole regions has reached a saturation point for carbon dioxide absorption (i.e. it can't hold any more) that is unprecedented.
Take a look at these US Gov't figures on global carbon emissions and tell me that you honestly believe that the intricate balance established by "mother nature" isn't thrown off by some 26.9 BILLION tons of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere per year:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html
Note that 26.9 is 2004 alone. It rises steadily each year. A ton of a gas such as CO2 is a large volume to begin with. 26.9 billion is a staggering number. And this is from modern day human activity. Kind of backs up the ice core studies that found we now have 30% more carbon dioxide in the air than before industrial times.
Your statement that "mother nature" can handle anything humans throw at it sounds like a head-in-the-sand stance made in defense of an all too dear status quo we all currently enjoy.
The troposphere is all we have to support life on Earth as far as the atmosphere goes. And within the troposphere the air starts getting "thin" above about 12,000' above sea level. That's one reason the FAA requires supplemental oxygen in aircraft flying above 12,000 feet (FAR part 121 sec 329). So, that means that for the average human, "normal" breathable air is limited to 0 - 12,000 feet.
Do you have any concept of how thin of a ribbon of normal "breathing air" that is covering the Earth's surface? And its okay by you to pump some 27 billion tons of non-breathable gas into that thin frail ribbon annually? (actually if you read the gov't link the emissions are forecast to increase to 33.9 billion metric tons in 2015 and 42.9 billion metric tons in 2030).
Funny you say this, I was on top of Mount Evans in Colorado this year, over 13,000 feet, and was breathing just fine.
Sorry, I have strong feelings on this topic too. I prefer to err on the side of caution and accept the research of thousands of Ph.D climatologists worldwide instead of just denying the problem because it means I might have to change my lifestyle some.
Take a look at these US Gov't figures on global carbon emissions and tell me that you honestly believe that the intricate balance established by "mother nature" isn't thrown off by some 26.9 BILLION tons of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere per year:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html
Note that 26.9 is 2004 alone. It rises steadily each year. A ton of a gas such as CO2 is a large volume to begin with. 26.9 billion is a staggering number. And this is from modern day human activity. Kind of backs up the ice core studies that found we now have 30% more carbon dioxide in the air than before industrial times.
Your statement that "mother nature" can handle anything humans throw at it sounds like a head-in-the-sand stance made in defense of an all too dear status quo we all currently enjoy.
The troposphere is all we have to support life on Earth as far as the atmosphere goes. And within the troposphere the air starts getting "thin" above about 12,000' above sea level. That's one reason the FAA requires supplemental oxygen in aircraft flying above 12,000 feet (FAR part 121 sec 329). So, that means that for the average human, "normal" breathable air is limited to 0 - 12,000 feet.
Do you have any concept of how thin of a ribbon of normal "breathing air" that is covering the Earth's surface? And its okay by you to pump some 27 billion tons of non-breathable gas into that thin frail ribbon annually? (actually if you read the gov't link the emissions are forecast to increase to 33.9 billion metric tons in 2015 and 42.9 billion metric tons in 2030).
Funny you say this, I was on top of Mount Evans in Colorado this year, over 13,000 feet, and was breathing just fine.
Sorry, I have strong feelings on this topic too. I prefer to err on the side of caution and accept the research of thousands of Ph.D climatologists worldwide instead of just denying the problem because it means I might have to change my lifestyle some.
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...id=58&Itemid=1
and there is much more out there that questions the global warming myth
You didn't explain why Mars is also warming. Are SUVs on Earth causing that too?
It's fine to err on the side of caution, and I said I understand why some want to believe the myth of global warming since it deals with our ability to survive. I of course disagree with your notion that my "head is in the sand" since I have done my own research, read both sides and made up my own mind based on facts.
It really bothers me when any group says if you don't believe as we do you are deniers and should have no voice. All I want is to encourage those to look at both sides and make up their own mind. If people still want to believe in global warming that is their choice, which is great. Also I don't think we should just trash the Earth because it is invincible. We all have a responsibility to clean our messes and leave the world a better place, but there comes a point of going to far.
10-13-2007, 11:09 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: 06-24-2006
Location: Bowling Green, OH
Posts: 2,315
What about the ice ages and why earth froze and thawed? I think earth itself has four seasons. Right now we are in spring/summer. Eventually the Earth will cool down leading to another ice age.
10-13-2007, 11:59 AM
#7
Banned
Join Date: 08-25-2007
Location: Myrtle Beach SC
Posts: 488
i remember the issue of the Ozone layer and we are all going to get skin cancer in the 80's. Guess that issue is solved LOL.
All of a sudden we are causing climate change LOL. Im not buying it. It's a natural progression. I wonder how much CO2 was blown into the air during the volcanic age.
When Al Gore rearranges his lifestyle. I'll be a believer. Paying "guilt" carbon credit is not taking the gasses from his Gulfstream out of the air.
All of a sudden we are causing climate change LOL. Im not buying it. It's a natural progression. I wonder how much CO2 was blown into the air during the volcanic age.
When Al Gore rearranges his lifestyle. I'll be a believer. Paying "guilt" carbon credit is not taking the gasses from his Gulfstream out of the air.
10-13-2007, 03:04 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-11-2007
Location: Palm Bay, Florida
Posts: 1,379
Most politicians, including Algore and John Edwards are do as I say, not as I do types. Both have huge environmentally uneconomical houses which are alright for them to support their life styles, but want all the rest of the peons to live in 800 sq ft green boxes. Most global warming is caused by the hot air they spew. Thirty years ago it was the coming of the next ice age concern, now it is global warming.
In the annuls of time you cannot take a ten year climate trend and predict the future climate trend 100 years into the future.
Sort of like the stock market, take the last two months of data, now predict the market for 2010.
In the annuls of time you cannot take a ten year climate trend and predict the future climate trend 100 years into the future.
Sort of like the stock market, take the last two months of data, now predict the market for 2010.
10-13-2007, 05:03 PM
#9
Member
Join Date: 09-27-2007
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 47
Well, you have articles blaming the Darfur situation on global warming, so using the same "logic", Gore = Jesus Christ.
The easiest solution is to build more nuclear power plants, but I dont think Gore's people would be in favor of that. Maybe because he hates mother earth. hehe
Jimmy Carter has a Nobel prize, as does Henry Kissinger... Gore fits right in.
The easiest solution is to build more nuclear power plants, but I dont think Gore's people would be in favor of that. Maybe because he hates mother earth. hehe
Jimmy Carter has a Nobel prize, as does Henry Kissinger... Gore fits right in.
10-13-2007, 05:38 PM
#10
Banned
Join Date: 08-25-2007
Location: Myrtle Beach SC
Posts: 488
Well, you have articles blaming the Darfur situation on global warming, so using the same "logic", Gore = Jesus Christ.
The easiest solution is to build more nuclear power plants, but I dont think Gore's people would be in favor of that. Maybe because he hates mother earth. hehe
Jimmy Carter has a Nobel prize, as does Henry Kissinger... Gore fits right in.
The easiest solution is to build more nuclear power plants, but I dont think Gore's people would be in favor of that. Maybe because he hates mother earth. hehe
Jimmy Carter has a Nobel prize, as does Henry Kissinger... Gore fits right in.
But alas liberals believe America is a bad place......and are more then willing to "negotiate " with terroist nations which despise our morality or the lack there of which is "protected" by the left. Go figure.
The ONLY reason we have not been attacked again is becasue of Bush. They know if they were to attack us again the country will rally around the President and gain a thrist for blood. Enlistments will sky rocket and Americans will demand real retaliation.
While those in the Universities teach the kids how bad we Americans are.
If God save us, Hillary gets in we will be attacked again because like her husband ( 1st trade Center bombing, The USS Cole, The embassy bombng etc..) they know she will not so a thing about it but try to "negotiate.........