Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize!

[LtMarvel]

Um, back to an earlier time when this was related to some Nobel Prize (at least tangentally). More than a few people chuckled at the initial blow their top reactions by some of the posters.

I hope you caught Monday's Daily Show (or the many Tuesday reruns). The opening segment had a highlight reel of many conservative Pundits losing it on TV.

So what is this? People full of themselves (that is, people who have strong opinions and pride themselves on sharing them) losing it when the world strongly suggests that some of their beliefs are way wrong?

[Samurai]

You said the judge ruled 11.

He ruled 9.

You are blatantly lying AGAIN, in a way where EVERYONE KNOWS YOU ARE DOING SO. How does this make sense to you?



The judge's ruling was quoted multiple times, you cannot claim you hadn't realised he'd ruled 9 instead of 11. It's been pointed out again and again and AGAIN.

Also, you keep saying falsehoods - also what the judge didn't rule. Bloody cease.
The judge's first ruling said 11. All the initial stories and reports said 11. He then wrote up his final judgment, and he combined a couple of things, reducing the number of bullet points to 9. BOTH statements were from the judge, as I pointed out before. I didn't know that one came after the other, though, or what order they came in. Now that I know the judge first said 11 and then revised it to 9 in the final written ruling, I'm willing to concede the 9, as I already told Tom (and you seem to have missed).

[Samurai]

Hey, I must of missed where you answered my question.

Have you seen the movie yet?

No, and I don't plan to. What's the point in watching Gore spout off error after inaccuracy after over-exaggeration when they've already been proven false?

Have you watched The Great Global Warming Swindle?

[BnL]

No, and I don't plan to. What's the point in watching Gore spout off error after inaccuracy after over-exaggeration when they've already been proven false?

Have you watched The Great Global Warming Swindle?

To be fair, the movie is 94 minutes. People went through the entire 94 minute movie with a fine tooth comb, and only came up with 11 (at best) things that need further evidence and research. Not so bad. I'd say the other 93 minutes might actually be worth a viewing.

[Samurai]

To be fair, the movie is 94 minutes. People went through the entire 94 minute movie with a fine tooth comb, and only came up with 11 (at best) things that need further evidence and research. Not so bad. I'd say the other 93 minutes might actually be worth a viewing.

I rather doubt Antarctica, Greenland, Lake Chad, Kilimanjaro, Katrina, Ocean levels rising, islands being evacuated, coral reefs being wiped out, the Gulf Stream stopping, polar bears drowning, and CO2 levels all took a combined 1 minute, and somehow the other 93 minutes are all accurate and well sourced... Rather, that sounds like a great deal of the movie right there.

[king mob]

Have you watched The Great Global Warming Swindle?


You mean the Channel 4 'documentary' that has been torn to pieces for containing complete lies & misrepresenting the views of scientists on the programme?

[Samurai]

You mean the Channel 4 'documentary' that has been torn to pieces for containing complete lies & misrepresenting the views of scientists on the programme?

No more so than Gore's movie, and probably a lot less in fact. And I thought we were supposed to call them "errors and inaccuracies", not "lies"?

So, did you watch it?

[king mob]

No more so than Gore's movie, and probably a lot less in fact. And I thought we were supposed to call them "errors and inaccuracies", not "lies"?

So, did you watch it?

Yes, it was utter rubbish & we've had this conversation before. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=167203&highlight=great+global+warming+swindle)

Let's focus upon this though.

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

Warming trend

The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.


Temperatures have continued rising irrespective of cosmic ray flux
The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.

"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science

Cosmic relief

The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.

But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed by, among others, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center.

Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth.

During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.

Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.

He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around.

"It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate; but you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game."

Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm

[Alan Lynch]

Carry on being heathens! For justice!

Presumably Northern Ireland can do the same thing (if they show the film in schools there), right?
If they hate freedom as much as we do, then I'm sure the North can do what they like. I think their Parliament has the same powers as our Executive when it comes to this stuff, although they might still be covered by English law.

I love when people argue about movies they haven't seen, just looked up on the internet. I automatically disregard everything they have to say, since any opinion offered isn't even theirs.

[Paul McEnery]

No more so than Gore's movie, and probably a lot less in fact. And I thought we were supposed to call them "errors and inaccuracies", not "lies"?

So, did you watch it?

Yeah, but you know what? Gore's stuff wasn't even inaccurate, just not yet 100% proven.

As opposed to the Swindle, which is not only massively inaccurate, but deliberately so.

See? One is the truth, the other is a lie.

Or perhaps it doesn't occur to you that the Nobel people can tell the difference.

Just like the rest of us.

[Charles RB]

Yes, it was utter rubbish & we've had this conversation before. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=167203&highlight=great+global+warming+swindle)

Well, apparently you get to have it again because Samurai's forgotten that Swindle was literally proven to be fraudalent and is trying to openly claim it's as accurate as Inconvinient Truth even though the weight of evidence is in Inconvient's favour and this has been shown before and on this very thread and ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRG BRAIN HURT.

[Tom]

No more so than Gore's movie, and probably a lot less in fact. And I thought we were supposed to call them "errors and inaccuracies", not "lies"?
Is your thinking really this binary? You were incorrect to assert that the ruling on the Gore film asserted "lies and falsehoods." That doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a lie.

[NickThompson]

You mean the Channel 4 'documentary' that has been torn to pieces for containing complete lies & misrepresenting the views of scientists on the programme?
I like that the Producer was so willing to go into debate about it. To quote Wikipedia referencing other things:

Responses to scientists

The Times reported that Durkin had seriously fallen out with a scientist who had been considering working with him. Armand Leroi was concerned that Durkin had used data about a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures which had subsequently been found to be flawed. Leroi sent Durkin an e-mail saying, "To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were wrong -- and may have been deliberately faked . . . what abundant experience has already taught me -- that, left to their own devices, TV producers simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth. I am very disappointed. I am copying this to Lou Bolch. And to Simon Singh, Ben Goldacre, and Olivia Judson -- fellow connoisseurs of this sort of thing."[49]

He copied the e-mail to scientific author Simon Singh. Durkin responded to Leroi saying "You’re a big daft cock". Singh sent an email to Durkin urging him to engage in serious debate. Durkin responded stating, "Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing", and concluded with, "Go and fuck yourself".

[rick]

No, and I don't plan to. What's the point in watching Gore spout off error after inaccuracy after over-exaggeration when they've already been proven false?

Have you watched The Great Global Warming Swindle?


Actually yes, I did see the The Great Global Warming Swindle.

I think it was you who posted the link to YouTube the day after it ran in the UK wasn't it?

One thing that I found fascinating about the documentary is that at least one of the scientists interviewed for the film, Carl Wunsch, said that his views were completely misrepresented in the film. Which is probably good for Wunsch as a scientist since almost every claim in the film has been disprove by the vast majority of scientific research.

Of course, since I have actually seen the film, I am able to draw conclusions from the arguments and statements made in the documentary itself, and draw my own conclusions.

However you on the other hand, have not seen An Inconvenient Truth, and can only draw conclusions about the film from what other people have said about it.

This means, and I say this as politely as possible, that in the case of the Gore film, you are simply talking out of your ass.

You have no actual idea at all what the claims are views expressed in the film are at all. All you have to go on, is what other people have said about it. Which means that at the very best, you only have secondary sources to draw from.

And yet, here you are for page after page, deriding and trying to debunk a movie that you haven’t even seen.

You can possibly see where that would bring your credibility on the subject into question?

[EdContradictory]

Samurai, seriously, and I'm saying this not as a moderator, it's best if you stop while you're behind. Time and time and time again you've been proven wrong and/or proven to have posted out and out falsehoods. All you're succeeding in doing is digging yourself deeper into this quagmire of crap.

That sound of metal on concrete? Sam just hit the foundation of a house in China.

[Samurai]

Actually yes, I did see the The Great Global Warming Swindle.

I think it was you who posted the link to YouTube the day after it ran in the UK wasn't it?

One thing that I found fascinating about the documentary is that at least one of the scientists interviewed for the film, Carl Wunsch, said that his views were completely misrepresented in the film. Which is probably good for Wunsch as a scientist since almost every claim in the film has been disprove by the vast majority of scientific research.

Of course, since I have actually seen the film, I am able to draw conclusions from the arguments and statements made in the documentary itself, and draw my own conclusions.

However you on the other hand, have not seen An Inconvenient Truth, and can only draw conclusions about the film from what other people have said about it.

This means, and I say this as politely as possible, that in the case of the Gore film, you are simply talking out of your ass.

You have no actual idea at all what the claims are views expressed in the film are at all. All you have to go on, is what other people have said about it. Which means that at the very best, you only have secondary sources to draw from.

And yet, here you are for page after page, deriding and trying to debunk a movie that you haven’t even seen.

You can possibly see where that would bring your credibility on the subject into question?

Except that I'm not personally trying to dispute the issues in Gore's film, I'm posting about a court case where presumably the judge did see it, and found it wanting in the facts dept. Big time.

So, how many individual points was Swindle proven in a court of law to be inaccurate about? More than 9, or less? ;)

By the way, I'm not saying everything in Swindle was accurate, or that I buy all the theories in it. I just see it as an interesting alternative to Inconvenient, and it points out several of the issues that the judge ruled were "inaccurate" in Gore's movie, such as the fact that increases in CO2 lag behind temperature increases, they don't precede them. They are a result of warming, not a root cause, though they may exacerbate the situation. I see Swindle as the counterbalance to Inconvenient, and while both films are flawed, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

[Samurai]

That sound of metal on concrete? Sam just hit the foundation of a house in China.

Whew, finally made it! Anyone want a plate of authentic Szechuan Chicken while I'm down here?

[rick]

Except that I'm not personally trying to dispute the issues in Gore's film, I'm posting about a court case where presumably the judge did see it, and found it wanting in the facts dept. Big time.

So, how many individual points was Swindle proven in a court of law to be inaccurate about? More than 9, or less? ;)

By the way, I'm not saying everything in Swindle was accurate, or that I buy all the theories in it. I just see it as an interesting alternative to Inconvenient, and it points out several of the issues that the judge ruled were "inaccurate" in Gore's movie, such as the fact that increases in CO2 lag behind temperature increases, they don't precede them. They are a result of warming, not a root cause, though they may exacerbate the situation. I see Swindle as the counterbalance to Inconvenient, and while both films are flawed, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.


Don’t be coy, of course you are trying to dispute the issues in Gore’s film.

What you wrote above would be an acceptable answer, except that you have very clearly been using this judges ruling as a support for both your own views and your obvious hostility toward both Gore, and his film.

Now you want to be hostile toward Gore, that's your business.

But you have also been highly critical of a documentary film, including the use of derogatores and name calling, that you freely admit that you have not seen.

If you were simply discussing the judges ruling and working to determine if the judge was correct or not, then you would have a point. But instead you have been positively cackling about it.

And as you have no intention of seeing the film, there is no way you will ever know if the judge, the critics, or even Al Gore, are correct or not, now will you?

[Charles RB]

Except that I'm not personally trying to dispute the issues in Gore's film, I'm posting about a court case where presumably the judge did see it, and found it wanting in the facts dept. Big time.

No, he found 9 points that were debatable but still ruled it was a valid educational tool. This has been continuously pointed out.

STOP FUCKING LYING ABOUT IT WHEN WE ALL KNOW YOU ARE DOING SO.

Will full-caps get your attention on this?

I see Swindle as the counterbalance to Inconvenient, and while both films are flawed, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Except Swindle is the one that the majority of scientists disagree with, so saying it's a counterbalance is factually wrong on account of the documentary being factually wrong.

[Samurai]

Don’t be coy, of course you are trying to dispute the issues in Gore’s film.

What you wrote above would be an acceptable answer, except that you have very clearly been using this judges ruling as a support for both your own views and your obvious hostility toward both Gore, and his film.

Now you want to be hostile toward Gore, that's your business.

But you have also been highly critical of a documentary film, including the use of derogatores and name calling, that you freely admit that you have not seen.

If you were simply discussing the judges ruling and working to determine if the judge was correct or not, then you would have a point. But instead you have been positively cackling about it.

And as you have no intention of seeing the film, there is no way you will ever know if the judge, the critics, or even Al Gore, are correct or not, now will you?
Of course I'm happy about the ruling, but watching the film won't change anything. It comes down to whether you believe Gore purposely exaggerated the film, claiming all kinds of things are the result of Global Warming when in fact they haven't been shown to be at all, or whether it was an accident, an oversight on his part. Has Gore come out and admitted that his film is full of errors, and here is the real data? No. Do environmentalists have a long history of scare tactics and exaggeration? Yes. So, I don't believe his errors were unintentional, and that is based on Gore and others like him, watching the film won't change my mind about his basic character. Just as watching a speech by Bush probably won't change your mind about his basic character, and whether he was accidentally wrong or "lying".

[rick]

Of course I'm happy about the ruling, but watching the film won't change anything. It comes down to whether you believe Gore purposely exaggerated the film, claiming all kinds of things are the result of Global Warming when in fact they haven't been shown to be at all, or whether it was an accident, an oversight on his part. Has Gore come out and admitted that his film is full of errors, and here is the real data? No. Do environmentalists have a long history of scare tactics and exaggeration? Yes. So, I don't believe his errors were unintentional, and that is based on Gore and others like him, watching the film won't change my mind about his basic character. Just as watching a speech by Bush probably won't change your mind about his basic character, and whether he was accidentally wrong or "lying".


Seeing Gore's film might not change your mind, but it would do wonders for you credibility as a critic of it.

[KevinTBrown]

Samurai, my suggestion to you is to just walk away from this thread.... Not saying that as a moderator, not yet, but you're just talking in circles. And the moment you said you haven't seen the film is the moment you lost any and all credibility in your arguments.

[rick]

Samurai, my suggestion to you is to just walk away from this thread.... Not saying that as a moderator, not yet, but you're just talking in circles. And the moment you said you haven't seen the film is the moment you lost any and all credibility in your arguments.


Kevin, with all due respect, I have to say that making a not so subtle threat against Tom, simply because his argument is ridiculous, is really not called for.

[KevinTBrown]

Kevin, with all due respect, I have to say that making a not so subtle threat against Tom, simply because his argument is ridiculous, is really not called for.

It was NOT meant to be a threat. I just wanted to be clear I was saying that not as a moderator.

[Agent Helix]

Not yet.... dun dun DUN

[rick]

It NOT was meant to be a threat. I just wanted to be clear I was saying that not as a moderator.



Look, there is no doubt at all that Tom is politically partisan to an unhealthy extreme, and that he will choose political affiliation over anything else, including the truth, every time.

But, in my opinion, censoring him, threatening him, locking him out of threads, banning him or whatever does nothing but strengthen his position and lend credibility to his arguments.

Simply put, the truth is more then enough to stop the Samurai in his tracks, and no other action is called for, let alone needed.

He can rant about whatever he pleases, but plain, old fashioned reality will always coldcock him the first chance it gets.

[KevinTBrown]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar guys.....

I am specifically not trying to moderate this thread yet. I'm allowing people to talk it out. Hence the reason I purposely preface my comments with "this is not me acting as mod" or some such line.

[Agent Helix]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar guys.....

I am specifically not trying to moderate this thread yet. I'm allowing people to talk it out. Hence the reason I purposely preface my comments with "this is not me acting as mod" or some such line.

Either be a mod or don't. You're obviously trying to throw your weight around.

[king mob]

Except that I'm not personally trying to dispute the issues in Gore's film, I'm posting about a court case where presumably the judge did see it, and found it wanting in the facts dept. Big time.

No, it was found to have NINE points of discussion where there is still room for debate.

So, how many individual points was Swindle proven in a court of law to be inaccurate about? More than 9, or less? ;)

The entire theory has been proven false, & the programme is littered with lies & is part of an Ofcom investigation.

By the way, I'm not saying everything in Swindle was accurate, or that I buy all the theories in it. I just see it as an interesting alternative to Inconvenient, and it points out several of the issues that the judge ruled were "inaccurate" in Gore's movie, such as the fact that increases in CO2 lag behind temperature increases, they don't precede them. They are a result of warming, not a root cause, though they may exacerbate the situation. I see Swindle as the counterbalance to Inconvenient, and while both films are flawed, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

No it doesn't. This whole 'well, we need to have a balanced view' bollocks when facts are there if you bother to look is just playing with stupidity as an alternative to reality. By your reasoning one should consider giving Holocaust deniers time in history classes, or Creationists time in science classes. No. It really is a case of we shouldn't allow lies & nonsense the same time as actual facts.

[KevinTBrown]

Either be a mod or don't. You're obviously trying to throw your weight around.

Actually, I am "acting like a mod". I'm allowing this thread to continue "as is". If you're taking me to task for using such words as "allowing" and "yet" and saying I'm throwing my weight around, then you need to re-think some things here. I could easily take many of you to task for the name calling, etc., if I chose to do so, but I don't. However, the odds are, when it's a political thread, I or Shel will eventually need to come in an actually say or do something and MODERATE this thread stringently.

For now, I'm wanting contribute to this thread as a member of this message board and not as a mod. Again, this is why I continually say, "this is me not acting as a mod," when I post here.



To Helix: Your only posts in this thread were directly solely at me, not at the subject at hand. Rather than derail this thread further, PM me if you've got something you'd like to say.

[king mob]

Actually, I am "acting like a mod". I'm allowing this thread to continue "as is". If you're taking me to task for using such words as "allowing" and "yet" and saying I'm throwing my weight around, then you need to re-think some things here. I could easily take many of you to task for the name calling, etc., if I chose to do so, but I don't. However, the odds are, when it's a political thread, I or Shel will eventually need to come in an actually say or do something and MODERATE this thread stringently.

For now, I'm wanting contribute to this thread as a member of this message board and not as a mod. Again, this is why I continually say, "this is me not acting as a mod," when I post here.


I'm going to echo a bit of what Rick has said. There's no need to moderate or censor people unless it really, really gets way out of hand as, I hope, we're all fairly mature adults. As yet, I don't see this getting that out of hand to an extent where action beyond a casual 'chill out' is really needed. So censoring Samurai, or anyone, by hinting that you need to moderate heavily, when in fact you really don't is being overly heavy handed.

[KevinTBrown]

I'm going to echo a bit of what Rick has said. There's no need to moderate or censor people unless it really, really gets way out of hand as, I hope, we're all fairly mature adults. As yet, I don't see this getting that out of hand to an extent where action beyond a casual 'chill out' is really needed. So censoring Samurai, or anyone, by hinting that you need to moderate heavily, when in fact you really don't is being overly heavy handed.

Not the intent....

So, believe me, I am not being heavy handed here. If that's how it's coming across, then my apologies.

Back to the thread and the commentary.

[Nick Soapdish]

No, and I don't plan to. What's the point in watching Gore spout off error after inaccuracy after over-exaggeration when they've already been proven false?

Have you watched The Great Global Warming Swindle?

I've seen both.

And I've commented, even prior to this lawsuit that I wasn't happy about inaccuracies in Gore's film.

But The Great Global Warming Swindle makes Gore's film sound like God's Own Truth, spoken directly by Him, with all of His angels in attendance and notarized by Jesus. It was hilariously uninformed, out-of-date and deliberately untrue, with a snippet of irrelevancies thrown in. It was almost as unfactual as The Day After Tomorrow.

[Nick Soapdish]

Except that I'm not personally trying to dispute the issues in Gore's film, I'm posting about a court case where presumably the judge did see it, and found it wanting in the facts dept. Big time.

So, how many individual points was Swindle proven in a court of law to be inaccurate about? More than 9, or less? ;)


Well, nobody sued them over it getting shown in schools so it never had the opportunity, but at least two of the people that were used in the "documentary" have complained that there comments were taken out of context or that their data was selectively chosen, one of whom is even an AGW skeptic.

[Michael P]

Since I still remember how to do long division, I ran nine inaccuracies into a 100 minute running time, and got one mistake every 11.1R minutes, and that's an average. I don't know how they're distributed through the film. Someone tell me, is it possible to miss all of them if you get up to take a really long piss?

I'd love to run 9 into the total number of factual assertions the movie makes. Anyone got those numbers?

Oh, and just for fun, does anyone have Limbaugh's latest transcript?

[Dry Observer]

Just so everyone is on the same page, here's a picture of the Arctic ice cap on September 5th, 1979 and September 5th, 2007.

http://aycu31.webshots.com/image/31190/2001725336433726227_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2001725336433726227)

Okay, who can tell what looks different in these two pictures, class? =)

And for those still talking about the "inaccuracies" in An Inconvenient Truth based on the IPCC's predictions, here's a chart showing where the IPCC's predictions have on global warming, versus verified reality.

http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/30409/2006112399219266203_th.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2006112399219266203)

Notice a difference?

I will leave it to the rest of you to decide whether you want to pay exorbitant energy prices in exchange for the right to shoot yourself in the head and see whether that particular chamber was loaded. Suffice to say I would prefer a different course.

=)

[singoalla]

Yay for Gore and the UN climate panel and yay for Nobel for awarding those taking proactive steps towards peace.

And yay for me getting beach front property in a few years and.. wait. The Greenland caps were gonna melt off and stop the Gulf Stream and send Sweden back to the ice age. Crap.

But! On the other hand the problem of overpopulating the planet should be solved by all the lovely new diseases we'll be getting and the draughts and heat-waves and... Wait, sorry.

*checks sarcasm*

Yay Gore.