Well, guys I was not sure whether I should react to this or not but the number of comments on cnn.com concerning Al Gore’s Nobel Prize convinced me that I might as well. So, as you all probably well aware by now Mr. Gore and IPCC shared Nobel Peace prize, the fact that immediately stirred discussion about Gore’s contribution as well as what exactly he is contributing to.

There are two, possibly more, sides to the discussion. Some people tend to attack underlying science while other question whether Gore’s contribution deserves the honor at all.

To all people who claim that Gore used “bad science” and was “dishonest” and that climate change either “doesn’t exists” or is “not of our making” I would like to pose this question… What makes you qualified? Please, sit down in front of the mirror and tell me with all of you “honesty” how many primary sources have you red? Have you ever red a single paper on the subject? Are you trained geologists? Possibly geophysists? May be climatologist even? Or may you knowledge and understanding of math goes so far beyond High School Math that you can actually understand competing climate models and their assumptions?

Please, take a hard look at yourself an tell me with all your “honesty” that you DO NOT receive you information from numerous conservative or right-wing religious sites written by people who understand the subject no better then yourself. Let’s face it, most of you discuss the subject that you do not understand and cannot possibly understand due to sheer lack of training. I mean, I always find it funny how people believe that they can discuss evolution, stem cells or climate change but, for some reason, avoid subjects like elementary particle physics, tensor and thermodynamics of media in an electromagnetic field, or transcription regulation of sugar utilizing operons in cyanobacteria. I mean, come on why one but not the others? It is not like models of climate change are new or something I remember CO2-induced warming discussed in certain circles almost 20 years ago.

Unfortunately, all this is true for the opposing side (and Mr. Gore) as well. I am wondering really how this rather non-political subject suddenly becomes one of the right-left discriminating factors. What exactly irritate conservatives so much in the idea that climate change could be caused by anthropogenic factors?

As for the Nobel Prize, I am sorry people. This is Nobel PEACE prize; if after Kissinger, Arafat, Gorbachev and Carter you still have any doubt about relevancy of this particular institution you are either very naïve or very optimistic. He did raise awareness of something scientific community was aware for at least 20 years. I suppose it deserves some recognition, but PEACE prize? What exactly is Mr. Gore’s contribution to Peace?

TRACKBACK URL: http://blog.coolminiornot.com/trackback/214

Short List
>What exactly irritate conservatives so much in the idea that climate change could be caused by anthropogenic factors?< 1) The idea that the climate was perfectly stable before the industrial age. Uh, Ice Age? 2) That .0000002 degrees variance is something to worry about. 3) That earth-worshipping and costly sacrifices to appease unseen nature-spirits is the religion of backward, savagely dangerous idiots. 4) That this is just the latest historically-testable power grabbing scheme of socialists, who know how to run your life better than you do. Stupid. Now get in line for your yearly-alloted roll of single ply toliet paper-style toilet paper.
Written by: Reid A.Bouk | 14/10 10:42AM

Doesn't look like a list to me.
1) I don't think anybody actually claiming this, people who do are simply ignorant. People, who use Ice age as an example of climate instability are ignorant as well and apparently are unaware about time scale involved. So, look for the better argument here, please 2) Not sure, I understand what are talking about here. Variance of what? What does this number actually represent? 3) Not sure what you are talking about here either. Worshiping free market and the ability (quite non-existent) for self-regulation is better in what way? 4) Conspiracy theory. Yet another one. Hillary is talking about right-wing conspiracy, you - about socialist conspiracy. Frankly, I see no difference. Both are quite unsubstantiated. So, indeed Reid. A.Bouk :))) In general however, why do you think you are qualified to judge the scientific side of the argument? May I see a list of your publications in any peer- reviewed journal on any subject remotely related to planetology.
Written by: Skeeve | 14/10 12:05PM


It's another one of those arguements that polarises opinion - especially here on the web. You're quite right though: everyone and their dog are ready to offer their opinion on the subject, but that's all it is: opinion. Very rarely do I see any factual evidence from the nay-sayers. Gore deserves no recognition whatsoever here - this issue has been around since I was a kid. He's a timely band-wagon jumper, that's all. Still, better than ignoring the issue I suppose. The U.S has the opportunity to be at the forefront of developing new technology here - it's something that could give the flagging U.S economy a real boost: develop the tech, flog it to the world - especially China and India (on the back of an icreasing tidal wave of public support and international recognition) and try to cut some of those rapidly increasing trade deficits. It'd mean huge investment I suppose but the current U.S regime seems to want to waste any spare on arms and military spending....
Written by: Scott | 14/10 12:42PM


Actually what I find offensive about Mr. Gore is not that he is preaching about science, but that he seems to feel that he can tell me I need to change my lifestyle to embrace the Less is More theory that has been around for the last 40 years while he continues to live his lifestyle of importance. Oh, wait, he purchases "carbon offsets"/indulgences for his sins. If he wants to speak from on high about the subject, he needs to walk the walk, as well as talk the talk, not just tell me that I have to walk the walk so he can live the same he has for the last 50 plus years. Its called Leadership folks.
Written by: Lloyd | 14/10 06:18PM

Climate Change
Personally I see both sides of the argument here. Yes, the climate is changing. Are we as inhabitants a factor? Yeah, I think so, but certainly not to the degree that some are making it out to be. The thing to remember is that the climate changed a shifted before man walked the earth. Also remember that in the 60s (I believe) there was a "Global Cooling" scare. The thing to remember is that "Climate Change" is a theory. Is there scientific evidence to back it? Sure. Is there scientific evidence to refute it? Also, sure. Is Al Gore a self aggrandizing politician? Sure. Is he worthy of winning the Nobel Peace Prize? Maybe, maybe not. My only issue with it is this: What does alleged "Climate Change" have to do with world peace advancement? Someone explain that to me.
Written by: Thunderhawker | 16/10 12:14PM

Name:


Email:


Title:


Comments:

Code: