"Of course, he's happy for Vice President Gore, happy for the International Panel on Climate Change scientists, who also shared the Peace Prize,'' Fratto (Bush's spokesman) said.
And this:
"Obviously Vice President Gore has helped to bring attention to climate change,'' Fratto said, with a similar nod to the United Nations organization that shared the prize today. "The IPCC scientists have done remarkable work to bring scientific rigor to the questions surrounding climate change."
Those darn liberals. Don't they know that Michael Crichton has proved the IPCC is wrong? What about Richard Lindzen? Haven't they read co2science or junkscience or surfacestations? How ignorant are they?
2007-10-12 05:51:03 · 11 answers · asked by Bob 7 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Sorry grizzbr1, for once I disagree with you.
There has been nothing here about the White House officially supporting the scientific judgement of the IPCC. That's important.
I'm sorry if you don't like my style on this.
2007-10-12 07:09:40 · update #1
Larry - You and I do agree that rebuilding New Orleans on its' present site is ridiculous. Even serious action against global warming won't make that a good idea.
2007-10-12 07:11:01 · update #2
Tomcat - Th IPCC scientists draft said it was "virtually certain" that global warming was mostly man made. The US and China changed that to "very likely".
You're not going to get a scientist say the Sun will rise tomorrow. "Virtually certain" is as good as it gets.
2007-10-12 07:18:57 · update #3
Personally I think it's a very brave decision that the Nobel Proze Commission have taken in making this award.
In doing so they have opened themselves up to all manner of accusations and criticism from the skeptics. Undoubtedly there will now be a flood of accusations that they are politically biased, easily swayed, financially induced etc.
To answer you specific question - no, it seems to be pretty much the whole world that is applauding Gore and the IPCC. People from all political persuasions, business leaders, prominent figures, social commentaors etc. The only people not seeming to be applauding are the skeptics for whom this is perhaps just another nail in their coffin.
You may be aware from my previous answers that I'm involved with one of the contributing organisations to the IPCC reports, today there has been emails and phone calls coming from all sectors of the global community. So in short, no it's not just liberals.
2007-10-12 06:22:38 · answer #1 · answered by Trevor 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
"You're not going to get a scientist say the Sun will rise tomorrow. "Virtually certain" is as good as it gets."
C'mon Bob that is a red-herring if ever I saw one. There are scientific laws that are indisputable. Scientists will stand behind those laws with certainty. Informed scientists will not stand behind man-made global warming with certainty because it is a theory, not a law. Your beloved IPCC even acknowledges that with their "very likely" and "virtually certain" statements. If it was a proven scientific law, they would not have to qualify it.
Your statement is an admission that man-made global warming has NOT be proven. And if it hasn't been proven, man may not fully understand the processes involved (which man most definitely doesn't). If we don't fully understand the problem, then any actions we take might actually make the problem worse. Need I remind you that during the 70's, scientists that didn't fully understand the problem of global cooling proposed spreading soot on the polar ice caps to absorb heat? Wow, brilliant. What "solutions" to global warming are equivalent to spreading soot on the ice caps?
Of course, every solution being proposed is obviously going to work because the arrogance of the global-warming alarmists won't let them even entertain the idea that they might not be able to comprehend the full consequences of man's actions one way or another.
And, yes, the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke. Any award that names Yasser Arafat a proponent of peace is a sham. I fail to see how the IPCC and Algore are promoting peace, but of course I am a conservative and by definition I obviously am incapable of thinking...
2007-10-12 09:07:53 · answer #2 · answered by 5_for_fighting 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Liberals do tend to follow in lock-step behind their big government leader's Robin-hood, mentality of taking money from the working people in order to give it to the non-working and/or increasing the scope and size of the federal government. The IPCC is basically set-up by political organizations, so I have some trouble with the so called "truth of the work". They are so sure of the "truth" that their predictions are preceded with words such as "likely" and they had to smooth out the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age in order to exaggerate the current warming climate. Some studies say the CO2 history is smoothed as well. Their "peer review" process seems to have missed the inaccuracies of the Mann's "hockey stick" climate history. The computer simulations have some trouble duplicating the .5º C average global temperature increase from 1910 to 1940, when there was a negligible increase in carbon dioxide and a very significant increase in solar activity.
Why do liberals have such great faith in a government that is predicting the possibility of increased sea levels on the order of 20+', while at the same time spending millions of dollars to repair a levee system in New Orleans that has already demonstrated the fact that it is inadequate? Why not just rebuild on higher ground?
As for Big Al, whoopee!
He is a political opportunist and a hypocrite.
2007-10-12 07:09:32 · answer #3 · answered by Larry 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes, Al Gore is a liar and a demogoge. There is no evidence to support anyones (yes anyones) claim that Global Warming is caused by humans. It is only a Theory. I've got a theory. My Lap top is responsible for killing all the bears in my city. My evidence. There are no bears in my city. There used to be a long time ago before my lap top got here! Damn man and his hatred of bears. Global warming has been around since long before man and will be around long after we leave. Quick Question Mars is warming more than the earth on avg. mean Temp. Yet no humans with big SUVs live there! Huh?! I've just proven Man Made Global warming false. Cause the result is the same with different causes. Meaning the original cause cannot be right!
2007-10-12 06:20:56 · answer #4 · answered by kellan m 2 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I wonder if the IPCC will step up to the plate now and make the statement that they are 100% convinced that global warming is primarily caused by human activities, instead of leaving their "more likely than not" clause in their projections.
Dana:
The great scientists who post links of a BBC article showing a neutron/hour graph and claiming that we know that global warming is not caused by solar variability. Probabilities are great Dana, but if you are going to pretend to be a scientists stop saying we know.
.
.
2007-10-12 07:11:17 · answer #5 · answered by Tomcat 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Yes because its a political issue. Just like if we suddenly succeeded in all that we wished to accomplish in Iraq and could bring our soldiers home and leave Iraq as a stable ally against terror No liberal would applaud the President in a job well done. They would have to take back the inhuman amount of propaganda that tries to portray the president as a retard and lose support from all the people who are completely convinced they could do a better job than bush. As if.
2007-10-12 06:21:14 · answer #6 · answered by Really? 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋
No, it's just global warming deniers, the majority of which are conservatives. However, as you well know, many conservatives acknowledge the scientific reality of anthropogenic global warming.
Once again Tomcat illustrates that he doesn't understand how science works. Probabilities are not "clauses".
I'm not writing a scientific paper. I'm giving explanations for laymen, so I don't have to be careful about saying "we know" vs. "more likely than not" or "I can say with 95% certainty...".
2007-10-12 06:15:58 · answer #7 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
its not just liberals! its lemings of all sorts!
check out this site. it takes the raw data from the Department of Energy on atmospheric gases and does some statistical analysis on them clearly spelling out each of their steps, and their conclusions are startling. .28% of the greenhouse effect is cause directly by humans! thats practically nothing.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
oh, and what is this world coming to when we award the Nobel Peace Prize, an honor previously bestowed on Ghandi, mother Terisa and Martin Luther King, is given to someone who has claimed he invented the internet? oiy vey...
2007-10-12 06:23:29 · answer #8 · answered by nacsez 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Bob, your question is no less a rant than those of ""the deniers". You should delete it voluntarily.
2007-10-12 07:00:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Yes it is. The rest of us know he is wrong.
2007-10-12 05:56:16 · answer #10 · answered by enicolls25 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋