Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ngdawg · 10-13-2007, 11:46 AM

It's not that easy, but it is that simple.
Whoever is the current leader of this country drives the current of the country, if, by nothing else, his power of the pen. Influence in Washington is everything, as is perception. Confidence(or lack thereof) in a perceived presidential stance, regardless of what that stance is in reality, drives the stock market, the legislation process and the judicial climate. And it drives the voters one way or another, furthering the influences in Washington.
As for the hostages, many reports state that it was Reagan's clandestine 'arms for hostages' negotiations that got them home. Carter wouldn't make deals, thinking 'talking' would do it. He by no means got them home. They were released the day of Reagan's inauguration, probably as promised due to those 'discussions'.
Reagan was so teflon that, while the Iran-Contra hearings could have caused him to pull a Nixon, he was largely forgiven because of the end results.(Many were calling for his head, impeachment, etc.)

How'd we get to this from Gore getting the Nobel?? Guess that's how important we find it....

Ustwo · 10-13-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

It's not that easy, but it is that simple.
Whoever is the current leader of this country drives the current of the country, if, by nothing else, his power of the pen. Influence in Washington is everything, as is perception. Confidence(or lack thereof) in a perceived presidential stance, regardless of what that stance is in reality, drives the stock market, the legislation process and the judicial climate. And it drives the voters one way or another, furthering the influences in Washington.
As for the hostages, many reports state that it was Reagan's clandestine 'arms for hostages' negotiations that got them home. Carter wouldn't make deals, thinking 'talking' would do it. He by no means got them home. They were released the day of Reagan's inauguration, probably as promised due to those 'discussions'.
Reagan was so teflon that, while the Iran-Contra hearings could have caused him to pull a Nixon, he was largely forgiven because of the end results.(Many were calling for his head, impeachment, etc.)

How'd we get to this from Gore getting the Nobel?? Guess that's how important we find it....

Oh, revisionist history.

The Iranians were terrified Reagan would invade. With Carter, there were no such worries.

Yes it was Carters strong backbone that caused the problems

I know it was almost 30 years ago, but come on.

host · 10-13-2007, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

You're correct, I don't click your links. <h2>For every accomplishment you dig up, it'd be extremely easy to dig up a failing.</h2> You chose to not do so, but we are aware of what the man has done, both pro and con.
As Cyn has stated, our remembrances of the Carter Administration begin and end with long lines at the gas pumps, American hostages in the Middle East, the economical disasters, including but not limited to inflation, rising interest rates on credit and falling interest rates on savings(political opinions state he almost cost us the COld War with that stuff), increasing taxes to cover Social Security funding and witnessing a UFO. It's common knowledge that he won the presidency, not on his strengths alone, but because of the disgrace of Nixon and Ford's decision to pardon him. His weaknesses, including the inability to bring home the hostages, were why he didn't get a second term.
I find it ironic, by the way, that this man who also claims and is seen to be a staunch environmentalist, started a fertilizer business back when he was also a 'peanut farmer'.

...but...you "dig up"...and share nothing....just your opinion....I don't know if it's informed opinion....feelings....what ???? It is not a discussion. I tell you..."I think such and such....and here is why...you reply that you do not even bother to read the "why" that I post....and that you can't be bothered to post your own, "this is why...."...and, it isn't just you....it's everyone who posts unqualified, blanket statements....leaving the rest of us to suspect that you're only capable of passing along the indoctrination that you've taken in from conservative media....

dc_dux · 10-13-2007, 12:31 PM

Fear not, global warming deniers.

The nobel prize of $1.5 million to Gore (Alliance for Climate Protection) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is still a paltry amount compared to the more than $6 million that Exxon/Mobile Foundation and others spend in grants to spread disinformation on global warming.

Welcome back Host

ngdawg · 10-13-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Oh, revisionist history.

The Iranians were terrified Reagan would invade. With Carter, there were no such worries.

Yes it was Carters strong backbone that caused the problems

I know it was almost 30 years ago, but come on.

It is conjecture that says they were 'afraid of invasion'. Nothing substantiates that claim.
Actually, the 'arms for hostages' backfired later on as Iran increased its terroristic tactics. Carter had considered the move, but not fast enough before Reagan got wind of it and, being a bit more 'ballsy', stepped in to get the deal going.
Carter had a strong backbone??? Must have been after he started working with Habitat for Humanity.

DaveOrion · 10-13-2007, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Oh, revisionist history.

The Iranians were terrified Reagan would invade. With Carter, there were no such worries.

Yes it was Carters strong backbone that caused the problems

I know it was almost 30 years ago, but come on.

True, the Iranians were worried much more about Reagan, especially after the barbarians comment. I'm certain that they much preferred to deal with Carter. I know the matter of who was directly responsible for the release is in contention, but to deny Carters contributions is to deny history. Reagan had just been inaugurated the day the hostages were released, what could he have possibly done besides a little military posturing.

Quote:

The siege ends. In the fall of 1980, the exiled Shah died of cancer complications. In September, Iran agreed to begin negotiations for the hostages' release. In exchange for their release, the United States agreed to turn over $8 billion of Iran's frozen assets, and to refrain from interfering politically or militarily in Iran's internal affairs. The United States and Iran signed the agreement on January 19, 1981, but in a final embarrassment to Carter, the militants did not release the hostages until January 20, the day President Reagan was inaugurated. Just minutes after Reagan took office, a plane carrying the fifty-two remaining hostages left Tehran for a U.S. Army base in Germany. From his home in Georgia, former president Carter announced that the plane carrying the hostages had cleared Iranian airspace, and that every one of the hostages "was alive, was well, and free."

http://www.answers.com/topic/iranian-hostage-crisis

To get back on track, if there is any, Carter didn't win the Nobel prize because of his work as president.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Carter did not receive the Nobel Prize in 2002 for his actions as president, but rather for the work of the Carter Center for the last 20+ years.

* Promoting human rights and working with refugees in Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, ...

* Mediating fair elections in Haiti, Guyana, Suriname, Paraguay...

* Serving as Clinton's informal ambassador and facilitating a peaceful settlement in Bosnia

* Working with Habitat for Humanity around the world

But even his presidency was recognized for his emphasis on human rights as central to foreign policy and his accomplishment in bringing peace between Egypt and Israel with the Camp David accords.

ngdawg · 10-13-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

...but...you "dig up"...and share nothing....just your opinion....I don't know if it's informed opinion....feelings....what ???? It is not a discussion. I tell you..."I think such and such....and here is why...you reply that you do not even bother to read the "why" that I post....and that you can't be bothered to post your own, "this is why...."...and, it isn't just you....it's everyone who posts unqualified, blanket statements....leaving the rest of us to suspect that you're only capable of passing along the indoctrination that you've taken in from conservative media....

I don't watch tv, especially any thing diguised as 'news'. I read 3 newspapers most days, the internet every day.
Don't make assumptions you can't back up.
I don't read your posts end to end because they hurt my eyes and are so far to the left, it hurts my neck.
It is not necessary for you (or anyone) to post word for word some biased article to prove your point-all that does is waste bandwidth, which depletes the ozone

A link will do and if I disagree or question it, I will look it up as well as rebuttal articles. You might also look up the sticky describing how to do a "click to show".
Since most of what is being discussed happened over 30 years ago, I wonder: who did you vote for in 1976?

dc_dux · 10-13-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

Since most of what is being discussed happened over 30 years ago, I wonder: who did you vote for in 1976?

If the discussion is to be extended beyond Gore to a more general discussion of the Nobel Prize, one can only wonder why Ustwo raised and others continue to criticize Carter's action 30 years ago, rather than address his actions when he was awarded the Nobel Prize.

I wont assume it was ignorance on the part of UStwo and others regarding the reason for Carter's award, but rather a convenient means to distract the discussion.

And I was only 15 in 1976.

Ustwo · 10-13-2007, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Gore gets a cold shoulder

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environme...696238792.html

Undoubtedly another unqualified right wing hack speaking out on the "consensus".

dc_dux · 10-13-2007, 03:28 PM

Dr. Gray seems like those psychics you mock for not applying for the $1 million reward:

Quote:

William M. Gray is known as a pioneer in the science of forcasting hurricanes. He is currently professor emeritus (meaning he's basically retired but still retains his title) at Colorado State University. Although he is an accomplished meteorologist, he has zero peer review papers on climatology. He is famous for making comments like "I predict, now I think I know as much as anybody, I'll take on any scientist in this field to talk about this, I predict in the next 5 or 8 years or so the globe is going to begin to cool as it did in the middle 40's."1 And similar statements by him have been recorded by the Denver Post. James Annon writes the following about Dr. Gray in his blog: article titled "Bill Gray won't bet on cooling":

"I emailed him some time asking if he will back up this statement with a bet. William Connolley and Brian Schmidt at least have done the same. None of us (to my knowledge) has had the courtesy of a reply. Given his statement above, I do not believe it is too much to expect that he should at least quantify his prediction in terms of his confidence (what odds he would place on his prediction being provved correct). To not do so seems to be clearly misleading the Senate Committee hearing."

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

is he a credible climatologist:

Quote:

....Gray has lost favor with the scientific community not because of his science, but because he is making strong statements without backing them up with evidence. This view has been confirmed by Texas A&M's Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist who recently spoke to Gray at a scientific meeting:

After arguing with him for a few minutes, it became clear that Bill Gray has no scientific theory of his own *why* the water vapor feedback is negative, and no data to support his non-theory. He has no manuscript describing his non-theory and no plans to attempt to publish it.

After I pointed out all of the evidence supporting a positive feedback, he looked confused and finally said, "OK, maybe the feedback isn't negative, maybe it's neutral. I'll give you that." I quickly concluded that he has no idea what he's talking about. I wish everyone that considers him credible could have witnessed this exchange

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...ray_revis.html

Or, if you are really interested in an analysis of Gray's work:

Quote:

Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming

Anybody who has followed press reporting on global warming, and particularly on its effects on hurricanes, has surely encountered various contrarian pronouncements by William Gray, of Colorado State University. A meeting paper that Gray provided in advance of the 2006 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology (taking place this week in Monterey California, and covered here by CNN), provides an illuminating window into Gray's thinking on the subject. Our discussion is not a point-by-point rebuttal of Gray's claims; there is far more wrong with the paper than we have the patience to detail. Gray will have plenty of opportunities to hear more about the work's shortcomings if it is ever subjected to the rigors of peer review. Here we will only highlight a few key points which illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray's pronouncements on climate change and its causes.

more on each of Gray's claims: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...4/gray-on-agw/

But that still doesnt address why you wanted to divert the discussion here to Carter's actions 30 years ago

Ustwo · 10-13-2007, 03:43 PM

I didn't bring up Carters idiocy, I was responding.

As for Dr. Gray, of course its important to discredit the messenger.

dc_dux · 10-13-2007, 03:44 PM

and of course, you dont address his "credientials"

ngdawg · 10-13-2007, 03:48 PM

He's not the only one who feels this way.
The debate has been, pardon the pun, heated for years and doesn't seem to be waning any time soon.
For every scientist that claims humans are destroying the climate, another will claim bullshit.
Somewhere in the middle is probably the truth. Clearing of rainforests and old wood growth forests has detriments that can not be ignored. The superfluous burning of fossil fuels does as well. But, since the 1970's, when our impact on the atmosphere first seriously came to light and policies began to change, the climate, greenhouse gasses, 'global warming', et al, did not.
At that time the 'industrial revolution' was less than 200 years back, with the height of 'careless' burning of fuels, manufacturing of new, potent chemicals and their thoughtless disposal being less than 100 years back.
In the past 30 years, rivers once considered dead have been brought back, natural animal sanctuaries have sprouted across the country, old growth forest destruction has ebbed and industry as a whole has cleaned up its act, literally.
Some failures: car pooling, efficient use of landfills, reduction of methane and/or developing an efficient use of it; development of alternative fuels, both for transportation and home use and mining.
While I appreciate anyone's efforts to be more conscious of the resources available to us, I also feel Gore and his ilk are political Chicken Littles.

Quote:

Atmospheric CO2 levels have climbed by more than 35 percent since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Fossil fuel combustion, which releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and land-use change, including deforestation, is blamed for the rise. Roughly 75-80 percent of anthropogenic carbon dioxide results from fossil fuel burning, while about 20-25 percent is produced by deforestation. The United States, the world's largest economy and consumer of energy, produces about 24% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

source
If scientists can't come to a conclusion, how can anyone else?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm

dc_dux · 10-13-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

For every scientist that claims humans are destroying the climate, another will claim bullshit.

Sorry, but thats just not true. The vast majority of studies that recognize the anthroprogenic contributions to the greenhouse gases and global warming, particularly the consensus findings of hundreds of scientists that contributed to the IPCC reports, are peer reviewed.

Why is is that most global warming skeptic findings, including Dr. Gray's, are not peer reviewed or published in credible scientific journals?

Why do you think it is that the science academies of the largest industrial nations dont accept your premise that "for every scientist that claims humans are destroying the climate, another will claim bullshit"? Do you think these national acadamies of science have a pre-determined, political agenda?

Quote:

In the past 30 years, rivers once considered dead have been brought back, natural animal sanctuaries have sprouted across the country, old growth forest destruction has ebbed and industry as a whole has cleaned up its act, literally.

Why do you think that happened?

I would attribute it, in large part, to governmental action like the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Wilderness Protection Act.

ngdawg · 10-13-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Sorry, but thats just not true. The vast majority of studies that recognize the anthroprogenic contributions to the greenhouse gases and global warming, particularly the consensus findings of hundreds of scientists that contributed to the IPCC reports, are peer reviewed.

Why is is that most global warming skeptic findings, including Dr. Gray's, are not peer reviewed or published in credible scientific journals?

Why do you think it is that the science academies of the largest industrial nations dont accept your premise that "for every scientist that claims humans are destroying the climate, another will claim bullshit"? Do you think these national acadamies of science have a pre-determined, political agenda?

Why do you think that happened?

I would attribute it, in large part, to governmental action like the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Wilderness Protection Act.

Your editing of my post, which parts you chose to address, is part and parcel of the entire argument-everyone, from laypeople to Gore, read what they chose to read into the available data. For all that's been done, more has not been and some things done didn't make a difference at all.
You disagree with the statement, yet I linked NASA's page to counter the notion that this is strictly a human problem.
Our 'contribution' to global warming is, indeed, debated within the scientific community, specifically, how much we are responsible for and what can be done to change it. And for everything said that could be done, there are others that will theorize that this is cyclical and not up to human intervention.
Edit: Gore to debate climatologists

Quote:

Al Gore says in the video that we're witnessing an unprecedented level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is driving global temperatures higher. But expert climatologists .- including Syun-ichi Akasofu, Tim Ball, Ian Clark, Piers Corbyn, Patrick Michaels, Nir Shaviv and Frederick Singer - say there is no evidence carbon dioxide drives global temperature change."

"We'll see what the public thinks after both sides make their case on a specific and narrow point," said Milloy. "Global warming alarmists didn't fare so well last time that happened," he added.

Scientists reverse their postion on manmade global warming

Willravel · 10-13-2007, 04:59 PM

Global climate change is not strictly human, but to deny the effect by humans ignores the evidence. It's because that fact is being hidden by interested parties that Gore's accomplishment is so great. Despite the actions of the Republican party to hide, discredit, or lie about global warming and the overwhelming evidence, Gore has made sure that everyone has access to good information. Despite the bloggers (not scientists) who discredit An Inconvenient Truth, the information is reaching the people.

It's a good thing, and he surely earned the prize.

dc_dux · 10-13-2007, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Al Gore says in the video that we're witnessing an unprecedented level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is driving global temperatures higher. But expert climatologists .- including Syun-ichi Akasofu, Tim Ball, Ian Clark, Piers Corbyn, Patrick Michaels, Nir Shaviv and Frederick Singer - say there is no evidence carbon dioxide drives global temperature change."

"We'll see what the public thinks after both sides make their case on a specific and narrow point," said Milloy. "Global warming alarmists didn't fare so well last time that happened," he added.

For the seven climatologists cited here, there are several hundred from 50+ countries that were part of the IPCC reports (several thousand scientists contributed to the report, but were not part of the final evaluation process) that concluded that human activities contribute to (not the sole cause of) global warming...supported by the national academies of sciences from the largest industrial nations.

Thats why it is called consensus and not unanimity. But I guess to some,
7 = several hundred + 11 national academies of sciences.

***

Gore's work on global warming is much like the work of the environmental movement that sprouted up in the late 60s. It raised public awareness.

It took 5-10 years for governments to catch up and take action through legislation in the mid 70s (that i cited above) that resulted in the environmental successes that ngdawg rightly noted have occurred over the last 30 years:

In the past 30 years, rivers once considered dead have been brought back, natural animal sanctuaries have sprouted across the country, old growth forest destruction has ebbed and industry as a whole has cleaned up its act, literally.

Unless ngdawg and others believe those "corrections" occurred naturally or that industry would have implemented those "corrections" voluntarily.

ngdawg · 10-13-2007, 06:54 PM

Of course there was legislation to make the changes. (Good grief, what is it with these smarmy little digs of presumptuous inuendo?) Lives were being affected and, ultimately, industry. (Try backing up your toilet and see if it doesn't affect more than just your bathroom, for an analogy).
The crux of the matter is not what humans contribute to global warming, it's how much is manmade vs. cyclical. Do we affect hurricanes? No. Little is mentioned of the actual changing of the earth's shape in these types of debates-it's no longer a perfect sphere; that, too, affects global climatic changes. Are humans responsible for the almost imperceptible moving north of the equator? No. How much does that affect global climate change vs. manmade pollutants, though? Envision a seesaw with cyclical climate vs manmade and watch it sway back and forth.....
The debates will go on because the earth is dynamic, the solar system is dynamic and data collecting is ongoing. In the meantime, volcanoes continue to erupt, land masses shift and the sun loses heat. Gore, et al, would have you believe mankind can change all that and thus, the Chicken Little syndrome.
In one of my links, mention is made that the US supposedly contributes to about 24% of the earth's pollutants. Not good, of course. But it's not 76% and I daresay it's been going down since that report and Bush reportedly rejected the Kyoto coalition because he's of the opinion we can do better(of course, Bush-bashers say nay to that idea and claim he's only rejecting it because of big business. *shrug*)
Of that I have no opinion at all, but as a whole, we are doing a helluva lot better than 25 years back and still the climate changes. Previous thought that it's the result of over 100 years ago seemingly is being dropped by some sources-others contend the worst of the height of the Industrial Revolution will linger for centuries and that the lack of reversal is due to not being diligent enough(that seesaw thing again). Somewhere in the middle of both trains of thought is probably where the truth lies. DDT, rampant burning of fossil fuels, copper and other metals being mined, the dumping of waste into public waterways-these all had lingering affects to life. Cars have to meet or exceed regulated emissions, we no longer have unleaded gas (don't get me started on that crapola ethanol), old forest growth is being left alone for the most part(they really need to leave the redwoods alone), the US is acquiring more parkland and the public as a general whole has become more 'informed' with entire industries devoted to a green way of life. All this happened long before Gore jumped on the fuel-efficient bandwagon.
But we still build roads and structures, still tear down smaller forests for shopping malls and I truly doubt Gore rides a bike across the country to give his speeches on global warming.

JustJess · 10-13-2007, 07:24 PM

To be perfectly frank... who gives a rat's ass about WHY global warming is occurring? The point is, it's happening whether from manmade causes, natural causes, or a combination of the two (and I'm betting the latter with absolutely no supporting reasons). The point is... why *shouldn't* we be more responsible about the environment? Because it might cost some big rich oil companies more time or money? Boo fucking hoo. The point is... we *DO* need alternate sources of energy. Because if it's 5 years or 50 or 500... natural oil sources *will* eventually dry up. And we are dependent on countries that produce oil. That's not good for the environment nor our political stance and actions.

So, the point is... GIVE UP THE OIL DEPENDENCE AND LIVE MORE RESPONSIBLY. Who cares what camp you're in, just stop being a schmuck!

Easier said than done, as I sit here on my electricity-powered laptop. But you get the general drift. Things need changing, and we're wasting time and energy arguing about WHY it needs changing.

Even if global warming isn't caused solely by all the factors Gore talked about, why does that matter? Aren't those behaviors still negative for other reasons? Be reasonable. So you hate Democrats or politicians or whatever. Do you hate living with clean air? Do you hate reducing our dependence on countries that hate us? Do you hate reducing carcinogenic effects on the populace? Don't be an idiot.

You people are politicizing things that are far beyond the petty bullshit of politics and our so-called two party system. Cut it out. Be logical, please.

ngdawg · 10-13-2007, 07:47 PM

I don't think it should be political at all. But why it occurs is important. It affects policy at a governmental and international level.
Personally, I think being environmentally responsible is not only an obligation but for individuals, it makes economic sense. I save money not using the hot water, not using the oven and clothes dryer constantly, turning off lights and not driving a gas-guzzler. My house stays cooler because there's trees around it (well, there were trees around it before the neighbors decided to chop'em down). It stays warmer in winter because the windows get sealed, thus less energy to heat it(plus the thermostat stays at 65).
I'd rather see farmland be built on than have forests torn down for housing-at least the farmland is already cleared and, in fact, trees and plants on that land would be increased due to the building.
Should I pay attention to a politician who travels the country by plane and car as he extolls the importance of political involvement in matters of the environment? I don't, so, no.
Should a politician be given the Peace Prize for environmental work? No, if they want to reward environmental zealots, there should be a category for it.
I do all the above, give to World Wildlife Fund when I can and I didn't need an Al Gore to tell me to. Maybe others do, but I'm of the opinion that either you give a shit or you don't. This issue has been in the forefront of discussion for over 30 years and one would have to have been living in a cave to not know something about it. On the other hand, living in a cave would be a true environmentalist....

dc_dux · 10-13-2007, 08:17 PM

Perhaps the award selection committee considered the fact that "this issue has been in the forefront of discussion for over 30 years" and very little has been done beyond studies and more studies:

"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Will the award help stimulate action....or will we just have more studies for the next 30 years? Who knows.

ngdawg · 10-13-2007, 08:38 PM

I don't think 'very little has been done'. More can be done...but the strides made in the last 30 years or more have been huge.
We have saved many species from certain extinction due to pesticides and hazardous environmental impact.
The stripping of rainforests has been slowed.
Stringent regulations have been put in place to control environmental hazards from industry.
Recycling has become a way of life.
More and more, alternative energy comes into play in both homes and business.
Revitalization of many areas of the world has taken place( the Black Forest comes to mind here)
Strip mining has decreased.
Our biggest hurdle is dependency on fossil fuels. How cool would it be to see a new development with a windmill in every yard?

host · 10-13-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I didn't bring up Carters idiocy, I was responding.

As for Dr. Gray, of course its important to discredit the messenger.

Ustwo....stop the BS....trot out a more credible "expert"....why don't you? William Gray is an embarassment:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301305_pf.html
The Tempest

By Joel Achenbach
Sunday, May 28, 2006; W08

As evidence mounts that humans are causing dangerous changes in Earth's climate, a handful of skeptics are providing some serious blowback

IT SHOULD BE GLORIOUS TO BE BILL GRAY, professor emeritus. He is often called the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert. He's the guy who, every year, predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical storm season. He works on a country road leading into the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, in the atmospheric science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists. By rights, Bill Gray should be in deep clover, enjoying retirement, pausing only to collect the occasional lifetime achievement award.

He's a towering figure in his profession and in person. He's 6 feet 5 inches tall, handsome, with blue eyes and white hair combed straight back. He's still lanky, like the baseball player he used to be back at Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington in the 1940s. When he wears a suit, a dark shirt and tinted sunglasses, you can imagine him as a casino owner or a Hollywood mogul. In a room jammed with scientists, you'd probably notice him first.

He's loud. His laugh is gale force. His personality threatens to spill into the hallway and onto the chaparral. He can be very charming.

But he's also angry. He's outraged.

He recently had a public shouting match with one of his former students. It went on for 45 minutes.

He was supposed to debate another scientist at a weather conference, but the organizer found him to be too obstreperous, and disinvited him.

Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. He feels intellectually abandoned. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit.

Which is this: Global warming is a hoax.....

....And Gray has no governor on his rhetoric. At one point during our meeting in Colorado he blurts out, <h3>"Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews."</h3>

When I opine that he is incendiary, he answers: "Yes, I am incendiary. But the other side is just as incendiary. The etiquette of science has long ago been thrown out the window."...

JohnBua · 10-13-2007, 09:47 PM

Was this the same prize awarded to Yassar Arafat?

dc_dux · 10-13-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

I don't think 'very little has been done'. More can be done...but the strides made in the last 30 years or more have been huge.
We have saved many species from certain extinction due to pesticides and hazardous environmental impact.
The stripping of rainforests has been slowed.
Stringent regulations have been put in place to control environmental hazards from industry.
Recycling has become a way of life.
More and more, alternative energy comes into play in both homes and business.
Revitalization of many areas of the world has taken place( the Black Forest comes to mind here)
Strip mining has decreased.
Our biggest hurdle is dependency on fossil fuels. How cool would it be to see a new development with a windmill in every yard?

Absolutely, we have made great strides at many levels in the last 30 years.

But we are living and working under a 30 year old national environmental policy. We renew the old bills every 8-10 years (Clean Air, Clean Water, etc) with the same old 1970s regulatory standards.....as the amount of greenhouse gas emissions continues to grow from the 70s, through the 80s and 90s, and into the 21st century.

I cant think of any new meaningful environmental initiatives under Reagan, GHW Bush or even Clinton/Gore.

And in the last seven years, we've taken a step backwards under the current Bush.

His "Clear Sky Initiative" rolls back Clean Air Act standards on power plants and other large industrial polluters.

His "Healthy Forest Initiative" has opened up some pristine national forests to the logging industry.

And his energy program gave $multi millions in tax breaks to big oil at the expense of supporting and developing alternative energy.

ottopilot · 10-13-2007, 11:18 PM

DaveOrion · 10-14-2007, 03:10 AM

Uh, Hello.....He donated all the money to.....wait, I'll give you 3 guesses.

Lets see 2500 children (Yes, I love children, I have one myself), or the entire planet........hmmmmmm.......

Quote:

The latest scientific data confirm that the earth's climate is rapidly changing. Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the course of the last century, and will likely rise even more rapidly in coming decades. The cause? A thickening layer of carbon dioxide pollution and other greenhouse gases, mostly from power plants and automobiles, which traps heat in the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of the world's leading climate researchers, sees a greater than 90 percent likelihood that most warming over the last 50 years has occurred because of human-caused emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

Scientists say that the earth could warm by an additional 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit during the 21st century if we fail to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels, such as coal and oil. This rise in average temperature will have far-reaching effects. Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. Disease-carrying mosquitoes will expand their range. And species will be pushed to extinction. As this page shows, many of these changes have already begun.

CLIMATE PATTERN CHANGES
Consequence: warmer temperatures
Average temperatures will rise, as will the frequency of heat waves.

Warning signs today

Most of the United States has already warmed, in some areas by as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, all states experienced either "above normal" or "much above normal" average temperatures in 2006.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) declared 2006 to be the second warmest year on record for the United States, with an annual average temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit -- within 0.1 degrees of the record set in 1998.

Every year from 1998 through 2006 ranks among the top 25 warmest years on record for the United States, an unprecedented occurrence, according to NOAA.

Consequence: drought and wildfire
Warmer temperatures could also increase the probability of drought. Greater evaporation, particularly during summer and fall, could exacerbate drought conditions and increase the risk of wildfires.

Warning signs today

Greater evaporation as a result of global warming
could increase the risk of wildfires.

The 1999-2002 national drought was one of the three most extensive droughts in the last 40 years

Warming may have lead to the increased drought frequency that the West has experienced over the last 30 years.

The 2006 wildland fire season set new records in both the number of reported fires as well as acres burned. Close to 100,000 fires were reported and nearly 10 million acres burned, 125 percent above the 10-year average.

If warming continues to exacerbate wildfire seasons, it could be costly. Fire-fighting expenditures have consistently totaled upwards of $1 billion per year.

Consequence: more intense rainstorms
Warmer temperatures increase the energy of the climatic system and lead to more intense rainfall at times in some areas.

Warning signs today

National annual precipitation has increased between 5 and 10 percent since the early 20th century, largely the result of heavy downpours in some areas.

The IPCC reports that intense rain events have increased in frequency during the last 50 years, and human-induced global warming more likely than not contributed to the trend.

According to NOAA statistics, the Northeast region had its wettest summer on record in 2006, exceeding the previous record by more than 1 inch.

HEALTH EFFECTS

More frequent and more intensive heat waves could result in more heat-related deaths.

Consequence: deadly heat waves and the spread of disease
More frequent and more intensive heat waves could result in more heat-related deaths. These conditions could also aggravate local air quality problems, already afflicting more than 80 million Americans. Global warming is expected to increase the potential geographic range and virulence of tropical diseases as well.

Warning signs today

In 2003, extreme heat waves claimed an estimated 35,000 lives in Europe. In France alone, nearly 15,000 people died due to soaring temperatures, which reached as high as 104 degrees Fahrenheit and remained extreme for two weeks.

Much of North America experienced a severe heat wave in July 2006, which contributed to the deaths of at least 225 people.

Studies have found that a higher level of carbon dioxide spurs an increase in the growth of weeds whose pollen triggers allergies and exacerbates asthma.

Disease-carrying mosquitoes are spreading as climate shifts allow them to survive in formerly inhospitable areas. Mosquitoes that can carry dengue fever viruses were previously limited to elevations of 3,300 feet but recently appeared at 7,200 feet in the Andes Mountains of Colombia. Malaria has been detected in new higher-elevation areas in Indonesia.

WARMING WATER
Consequence: more powerful and dangerous hurricanes
Warmer water in the oceans pumps more energy into tropical storms, making them more intense and potentially more destructive.

Warning signs today

The number of category 4 and 5 storms has greatly increased over the past 35 years, along with ocean temperature.

The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history, with a record 27 named storms, of which 15 became hurricanes. Seven of the hurricanes strengthened into major storms, five became Category 4 hurricanes and a record four reached Category 5 strength.

Hurricane Katrina of August 2005 was the costliest and one of the deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history.

Consequence: melting glaciers, early ice thaw
Rising global temperatures will speed the melting of glaciers and ice caps, and cause early ice thaw on rivers and lakes.

Warning signs today

At the current rate of retreat, all of the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone by 2070.

After existing for many millennia, the northern section of the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica -- a section larger than the state of Rhode Island -- collapsed between January and March 2002, disintegrating at a rate that astonished scientists. Since 1995 the ice shelf's area has shrunk by 40 percent.

According to NASA, the polar ice cap is now melting at the alarming rate of nine percent per decade. Arctic ice thickness has decreased 40 percent since the 1960s.

Arctic sea ice extent set an all-time record low in September 2007, with almost half a million square miles less ice than the previous record set in September 2005, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Over the past 3 decades, more than a million square miles of perennial sea ice -- an area the size of Norway, Denmark and Sweden combined --has disappeared.

Multiple climate models indicate that sea ice will increasingly retreat as the earth warms. Scientists at the U.S. Center for Atmospheric Research predict that if the current rate of global warming continues, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by 2040.

Consequence: sea-level rise
Current rates of sea-level rise are expected to increase as a result both of thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of most mountain glaciers and partial melting of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice caps. Consequences include loss of coastal wetlands and barrier islands, and a greater risk of flooding in coastal communities. Low-lying areas, such as the coastal region along the Gulf of Mexico and estuaries like the Chesapeake Bay, are especially vulnerable.

Warning signs today

Global sea level has already risen by four to eight inches in the past century, and the pace of sea level rise appears to be accelerating. The IPCC predicts that sea levels could rise 10 to 23 inches by 2100, but in recent years sea levels have been rising faster than the upper end of the range predicted by the IPCC.

In the 1990s, the Greenland ice mass remained stable, but the ice sheet has increasingly declined in recent years. This melting currently contributes an estimated one-hundredth of an inch per year to global sea level rise.

Greenland holds 10 percent of the total global ice mass; if it melts, sea levels could increase by up to 21 feet.

ECOSYSTEM DISRUPTION

Warmer temperatures may cause some ecosystems, including alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains, to disappear.

Consequence: ecosystem shifts and species die-off
The increase in global temperatures is expected to disrupt ecosystems and result in loss of species diversity, as species that cannot adapt die off. The first comprehensive assessment of the extinction risk from global warming found that more than one million species could be committed to extinction by 2050 if global warming pollution is not curtailed. Some ecosystems, including alpine meadows in the Rocky Mountains, as well as tropical montane and mangrove forests, are likely to disappear because new warmer local climates or coastal sea level rise will not support them.

Warning signs today

A recent study of nearly 2,000 species of plants and animals discovered movement toward the poles at an average rate of 3.8 miles per decade. Similarly, the study found species in alpine areas to be moving vertically at a rate of 20 feet per decade in the 2nd half of the 20th century.

The latest IPCC report found that approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if global average temperature increases by more than 2.7 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit.

Some polar bears are drowning because they have to swim longer distances to reach ice floes. The U. S. Geological Survey has predicted that two-thirds of the world's polar bear sub-populations will be extinct by mid-century due to melting of the Arctic ice cap.

In Washington's Olympic Mountains, sub-alpine forest has invaded higher elevation alpine meadows. In Bermuda and other places, mangrove forests are being lost.

In areas of California, shoreline sea life is shifting northward, probably in response to warmer ocean and air temperatures.

Over the past 25 years, some penguin populations have shrunk by 33 percent in parts of Antarctica, due to declines in winter sea-ice habitat.

The ocean will continue to become more acidic due to carbon dioxide emissions. Because of this acidification, species with hard calcium carbonate shells are vulnerable, as are coral reefs, which are vital to ocean ecosystems. Scientists predict that a 3.6 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature would wipe out 97 percent of the world's coral reefs.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp

raveneye · 10-14-2007, 03:13 AM

Bottom line, of course, is that the IPCC and Al Gore are correct.

Thanks Al and IPCC, for your accurate reporting of the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

Necrosis · 10-14-2007, 03:43 AM

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Quote:

Glass Houses

Claim: E-mail compares George W. Bush's eco-friendly ranch with Al Gore's energy-expending mansion.

Status: True.

Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2007]

LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."

Origins: This e-mail comparison between the homes of President George W. Bush and former vice-president Al Gore began circulating on the Internet in March 2007 (shortly after the latter's film on the global warming issue, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Academy Award as Best Documentary). Short and sweet, there's a fair bit of truth to the e-mail: Al Gore's Nashville mansion is something of the energy-gobbler the e-mail depicts, while President Bush's Crawford ranch is more the model of responsible resource use the juxtaposition portrays it to
be.

According to the Associated Press, the Gore's 10,000 square foot Belle Meade residence consumes electricity at a rate of about 12 times the average for a typical house in Nashville (191,000 kwh versus 15,600 kwh). While there are mitigating factors (further discussed in our article about the Gore household's energy use), this is still a surprising number, given that the residence is approximately four times the size of the average new American home.

The Prairie Chapel Ranch ranch home owned by George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas, was designed by Austin architect David Heymann, an associate dean for undergraduate programs at the University of Texas School of Architecture. As the Chicago Tribune described the house in a 2001 article:
The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.
Other news articles published in 2001-02 provided expanded descriptions of the ranch house:
"By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small," says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home.

Constructed from a local limestone, the house has eight rooms in a long, narrow design to take advantage of views and breezes. A porch Bush ranch house stretches across the back and both ends of the house, widening at one end into a covered patio off the living room.

The tin roof of the house extends beyond the porch. When it rains, it's possible to sit on the patio and watch the water pour down without getting wet. Under a gravel border around the house, a concrete gutter channels the water into a 25,000-gallon cistern for irrigation. In hot weather, a terrace directly above the cistern is a little cooler than the surrounding area.

Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground — one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called "gray water," and one tank for "black water" from the kitchen sink and toilets. The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater. It is used to irrigate flower gardens, newly planted trees and a larger flower and herb garden behind the two-bedroom guesthouse. Water for the house comes from a well.

The Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume. Several holes were drilled 300 feet deep, where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees. Pipes connected to a heat pump inside the house circulate water into the ground, then back up and through the house, heating it in winter and cooling it in summer. The water for the outdoor pool is heated with the same system, which proved so efficient that initial plans to install solar energy panels were cancelled.

The features are environment-friendly, but the reason for them was practical — to save money and to save water, which is scarce in this dry, hot part of Texas.

Was the Nobel committee aware of Gore's conservation efforts in his personal life?

ngdawg · 10-14-2007, 03:54 AM

To play Devil's Advocate to DaveMatrix's quoted piece:

Quote:

The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 380 ppm and the estimated temperature increase since 1880 (when regular temperature recordkeeping began) is estimated to be about 0.60 degrees Centigrade.

Since at least half of this temperature increase pre-dated 1950 – prior to any significant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels – we can estimate that the 30 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is associated with a temperature increase of about 0.30 degrees Centigrade. This supports the idea that doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution levels would cause less than a one degree Centigrade increase – and we’re not close to such a doubling.

Since this small variation in global temperature is well within the historical climate record, panic hardly seems warranted.

So where does all the fuss about manmade CO2 and global warming come from? Not from actual temperature measurements and greenhouse physics – rather it comes from manmade computer models relying on myriad assumptions and guesswork. Many models incorporate hypothesized “positive feedbacks” in the climate system, which tend to amplify model predictions. But no model has been validated against the historical temperature record. So they don’t “radiate” much confidence when it comes to forecasting temperatures.

Rest of article

Quote:

Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists.

A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels.

But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory.

In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption.

Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming.

Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.

But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

Rest of article

dc_dux · 10-14-2007, 04:33 AM

Here is an inconvenient truth for those who like to rely on sites like JunkScience.com or Fox News (and PrisonPlanet.com) or videos like the Great Global Warming Swindle for their global warming information.

These sites provide "remarks" by skeptical scientists but rarely, if ever (I cant find any) provide links to studies published in credible scientific journals or, at the very least, are peer reviewed.

Why do you think that is? Perhaps because they arent published in credible scientific journals or peer reviewed?

Just a thought.

Baraka_Guru · 10-14-2007, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

These sites provide "remarks" by skeptical scientists but rarely, if ever (I cant find any) provide links to studies published in credible scientific journals or, at the very least, are peer reviewed.

Why do you think that is? Perhaps because they arent published in credible scientific journals or peer reviewed?

Tyranny of the majority?

DaveOrion · 10-14-2007, 05:20 AM

Oh boy, now we're gonna compare the houses of Gore & Bush??? Gore didn't do this, so his utility bills seem trivial.

Quote:

On September 7th, 2003, President Bush announced on national television that he was going to ask the Congress to grant him an additional $87 billion dollars for the fiscal year, beginning October 1, 2004, to continue the fight on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since before then, to the end of September, 2007, the United States has dedicated approximately $315 billion dollars to the cause.

Three-hundred-fifteen billion dollars ...

Update : July 21, 2006

This is the amount of money the US has allocated for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to be spent by September 30, 2006, the end of the fiscal year. And the Senate is working on a spending bill that will add another $50 billion more in spending for 2007.

This pile is 125 feet wide, 200 feet deep, and 450 feet tall.

450 feet is the height of a 38-story building. It's the hieght of the Millenium Wheel in London. It is also the height of the Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas and the Louisiana State Capitol Building.

If you were to stack the money in a single stack, your stack would be 19,887 miles tall, enough to wrap the Moon at its equator almost 3 times.

President Bush,
Remarks by the President in Photo Opportunity with His Cabinet
Jan. 6, 2003

"Our administration is concerned about deficits, and the way they deal with deficits is you want to control spending. And I hope Congress lives up to their words. When they talk about deficits, they can join us in making sure we don't overspend. They can join us and make sure that the appropriations process is focused on those issues that -- those items that are absolutely necessary to the American people. I'm pleased that members of the Congress are talking about deficits. It means they understand their obligations not to overspend the people's money."

http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/

dc_dux · 10-14-2007, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Tyranny of the majority?

You would think that with $16 million alone from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005, they would have been able to buy off one tyrannical editor of a reputable mainstream scientific journal instead of self-publishing in the internal publications of these funded organizations.

ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html

flstf · 10-14-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrosis

Was the Nobel committee aware of Gore's conservation efforts in his personal life?

I'm sure they were. They probably think that Gore requires a large carbon footprint in order to enable him to tirelessly critisize our excessive and wasteful energy useage. I think the idea is if he can convince a lot of us poorer folks to conserve it will more than make up for his and other wealthy peoples excesses. When he really believes that human caused global warming is a big enough problem I'm sure he will begin to cut back a little.

DaveOrion · 10-14-2007, 05:24 PM

Ok, lets get the story straight, for once. I live near Nashville so I'm familar with this story. Gores home in Belle Meade isn't the one pictured above, its a 2 story and he has another, his family home which he inherited form his father, also a TN senator. That may be the one pictured above......The city of Belle Meade has been blocking Gores attempts to install solar panels because they are considered unsightly by the rich people in that neighborhood. He purchases green power that costs twice as much, to offset his carbon footprint.

Quote:

TIME quoted Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for Gore, saying that the Gore family tries to buy green energy to reduce their carbon footprint. She continued to say that since the controversy, the Gore family was "in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power." She also added, "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero." [17] WKRN-TV reported that the Gore family obtains their power from the Nashville Electric Service's "renewable energy initiative", The Green Power Switch program [20] which depends upon "wind, solar, and methane gas." [21] The Detroit Free Press further noted that "Gore purchased 108 blocks of 'green power' for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills. That’s a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources. The green power Gore purchased is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES’s Web site." [18] The figure of 108 blocks of green power per month corresponds[20] to 16,200 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month, Al Gore's average monthly use for 2005.

Keith Olbermann at MSNBC reported that the Gore home includes offices for both Gore and his wife and 'special security measures' making it unrepresentative of what the average US home consumes. Additionally, the green power purchased by the Gores increased the cost of their electricity by "$5,893, more than 50 percent, in order to minimize carbon pollution."[22]

Kreider suggested in TIME that the attacks on Gore's energy use were political in nature and stated:

“ Sometimes when people don't like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it's convenient to attack the messenger. [17] ”

Chris Cillizza and Matthew Mosk in a Washington Post article quoted TCPR president Johnson as stating: "The energy he receives into his house is no different than what I receive into my house." They also noted that, "Kreider added that a renovation of the Gores' house is underway to make it more energy efficient, an update that will include the addition of solar panels." [23]

An article in USA Today stated, "Zoning rules in Al Gore's upscale neighborhood kept the former vice president and environmental activist from installing solar panels on his roof...New rules going into effect on April 1 will allow homeowners to install solar panels on their roofs. But there's a caveat: 'Solar panels may be installed upon the roof of a building so long as they are not visible from the street or from any adjoining property,' according to the ordinance. Gore's roof does have flat areas where the panels could be placed, Franklin said. The builders at Gore's home plan to make the application for solar panels once the new ordinance goes into effect." [24]

He does have money but how many US senators do you know that don't??? Hmmmmmm.........

As far as him inventing the internet, that is of course a misquote.

Quote:

Al Gore was involved in the development and mainstreaming of the Internet as both Senator and Vice-President. Campbell-Kelly and Aspray note in Chapter 12 of their 1996 text, Computer: A History of the Information Machine, that up until the early 1990s public usage of the Internet was limited. They continue to state that the "problem of giving ordinary Americans network access had exercised Senator Al Gore since the late 1970s" leading him to develop legislation which would alleviate this problem. [3] Gore thus began to craft the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill" [4]) after hearing the 1988 report Toward a National Research Network[5] submitted to Congress by a group chaired by UCLA professor of computer science, Leonard Kleinrock, one of the central creators of the ARPANET (the ARPANET, first deployed by Kleinrock and others in 1969, is the predecessor of the Internet). [6]

In 1999, various media outlets suggested that Gore claimed that he "invented the internet" [7], [8] in reference to a CNN interview in which he said, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." [9]

In response to this controversy, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn wrote a 2000-09-29 article (originally sent via email) which described Gore's contributions to the Internet since the 1970s, including his work on the Gore Bill:[10]

“ [A]s the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_controversies

ngdawg · 10-14-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Here is an inconvenient truth for those who like to rely on sites like JunkScience.com or Fox News (and PrisonPlanet.com) or videos like the Great Global Warming Swindle for their global warming information.

These sites provide "remarks" by skeptical scientists but rarely, if ever (I cant find any) provide links to studies published in credible scientific journals or, at the very least, are peer reviewed.

Why do you think that is? Perhaps because they arent published in credible scientific journals or peer reviewed?

Just a thought.

Neither is your link a 'credible scientific journal'. Uh, Fox News? For that matter, ALL news is biased...which would make ALL news non-credible sources.
To reiterate what was said earlier, you pick and choose and edit what you want to convey-everyone does. But to say that your argument is backed by a more 'credible' source, when, in fact it is more biased than something from a 'news source' is just hypocracy and weak.
For what it's worth, I'm 'green' in thought and in deed; it is something I feel pretty strongly about.
But that fact remains that the scientific community is not unanimous in its conclusions about the definitive whats and whys of changing climate, except to say some part may be manmade, some is not.

dc_dux · 10-14-2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

Neither is your link a 'credible scientific journal'. Uh, Fox News? For that matter, ALL news is biased...which would make ALL news non-credible sources.
To reiterate what was said earlier, you pick and choose and edit what you want to convey-everyone does. But to say that your argument is backed by a more 'credible' source, when, in fact it is more biased than something from a 'news source' is just hypocracy and weak.
For what it's worth, I'm 'green' in thought and in deed; it is something I feel pretty strongly about.
But that fact remains that the scientific community is not unanimous in its conclusions about the definitive whats and whys of changing climate, except to say some part may be manmade, some is not.

If by "my link" you are referring to the Union of Concerned Scientists report on Exxon-Mobil funding, you are correct in that the press release is not a scientific journal. I mentioned Fox News because of the link you posted that was a story from JunkScience.com, a bogus group by any scientific standards. The "reporter", is from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of those groups funded by ExxonMobil.

If you were interested in reading the report that is linked in the press release, you would have seen that the UCS scientists followed proper research protocol and annotated their report with 273 footnotes to source material. You can question their funding if you want, but they dont make unsubstantiated claims in their reports.

You see, that is the difference between proper scientific research and the work of many of the skeptics who seem to conveniently forget footnotes or any documentation of their source matieral, which IMO, makes UCS more credible that ExxonMobil or any of the foundations who publish reports with their money.

I still wonder why it so hard to provide a published report, with source information" from a skeptic scientists, rather than just their talking points.

BTW, I dont think any one in the scientific community or the political/public policy community have said that there is unanimity in the causes or contributions to global warming....but ithere is consensus among climatologists (and national academies of sciences) that it is highly likely (not 100% certainty) that human activities contributes to greenhouse gases and global warming. Ustwo's links to skeptics, the seven skeptics (that you posted earlier) or a handful of others funded by energy interests groups represent a very small slice of the climatology community. That is why the overwhelming majority is considered a consensus.

If you dont agree with, or question the conclusions of the consensus, thats fine. But it is incorrect to say there is no consensus based on a few skeptics.

And its great that you are green! I try to be as well.

host · 10-14-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Hurray for Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize over Irena Sendler who risked death on a daily basis to rescue only 2,500 children during the Holocaust.! ...way to go Al, way to go Nobel!

From the organization (named for the man that invented dynamite) that has previously accepted nominations for the likes of Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler...
Take that Irena Sendler!

Al Gore should take several victory laps in his solar powered G5 jet, or at least do a few doughnuts.

I would!

<h3>Al Gore, who invented the internet, is now $1.4million dollars richer after winning Nobel Peace Prize.</h3>

Some quotes from a Kansas City Star article, October 12, 2007 click to show

<h3>The Gore bashers' claim about Al Gore and "the internet" is still alive and well despite my attempt, earlier.... in</h3>

post #27, I provided a link to an old post on another thread that contained all of this:

The right's principle propagandist, L. Brent Bozell III, may have been responsible in misleading you to believe that Al Gore claimed to have "invented" the internet:
Here is Bozell...attacking Gore, less thna a month before the 2000 Gore vs. Bush, election....

<b>Al Gore is a visionary, he did not claim that he "invented the internet: </b>

Quote:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellC...ol20001010.asp
<h3>Gore Lies Prove Media Power Shift
by L. Brent Bozell III
October 10, 2000</h3>

......Nearly every Gore gaffe that's become part of the campaign talking points was originally ignored by the major media, which attempted to strangle the mistakes and embarrassments in the crib. Now that they're resonating, liberals are huffing and puffing about how Gore's gaffes aren't really gaffes. He didn't really say he "invented the Internet," they complain, he "took the initiative in creating it." The real point here isn't the complete lack of distinction between "inventing" and "creating" the Internet. It's that Gore said this on March 9, 1999, to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, and Blitzer didn't even blink. He didn't follow up. His eyebrows didn't even move. He just asked another question. The statement went completely unreported on television for ten days.

That same pattern of media apathy and omission has followed almost every other Gore boast and flub. .....

Intense1, I've recently posted much about L. Brent Bozell III's 19 year disinformation campaign to control the news media by branding much of it as having a "liberal bias", for the purpose of convincing people to read "news" filtered by sites similar to his CNSnwes.com, newsbusters.org , MRC.org , and townhall.com . He tries to intimidate the actual US working press, with his false and misleading accusations of their "liberal bias", and by "selling" MRC's "research. In 1992, Bozell claimed that "90 percent" of articles about "liberal media bias" were based on MRC "reasearch.
<b>Here is the actual background of the myth that Al Gore said, "I invented the internet.":</b>
Al Gore had more influence over the rapid development of the internet, than any other federal legislator:
(Take note of the dates of the articles that I've cited, and that 1994 was considered the year of "early" adapters.)

Quote:

http://www.sethf.com/gore/
<b>Al Gore "invented the Internet" - resources</b>
by <a href="http://sethf.com/">Seth Finkelstein</a>

<p>
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/" target="62d019beaeaf6dca44b7aceb6e823279">Transcript: Vice President Gore on CNN's 'Late Edition'</a>
</p>

<blockquote><p>
BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and
international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit
of the politics right now....
</p><p>
....GORE: Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my
campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope
that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel
that it will be.
</p><p>
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American
people. I've traveled to every part of this country during
the last six years. During my service in the United States
Congress, <b>I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I
took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of
initiatives that have proven to be important...</b>
</p></blockquote>

<p>
The origins of the story:
</p>
<dl>
<dt><a href="http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,18390,00.html" target="e14996b366604267d354b74ba9c09d22">No Credit Where It's Due</a>

</dt>
<dd>
The original <em>Wired News</em> article by Declan McCullagh, Mar. 11, 1999,
which started the claim:<br />
"It's a time-honored tradition for presidential hopefuls to claim
credit for other people's successes. ... After Gore took credit for
the Internet, ...<br />
(note - first use found so far of "invent" wording is in a mailing-list message headline composed by Declan McCullagh, publicizing a Republican press release from the story:<br>
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010531124315/http://www.politechbot.com/p-00285.html" target="0a1ac4c44826104216d0cbd9f0a8a90c">House Majority Leader Armey on Gore "inventing the Internet"</a>
)
</dd>
<dt><a href="http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,18655,00.html" target="32067309c5f08c7cb2df3ad827addccb">The Laugh Is on Gore</a>

</dt>
<dd>
One follow-up <em>Wired News</em> article by Declan McCullagh, Mar. 23, 1999,
pressing the claim:<br />
"Al Gore's timing was as unfortunate as his boast. Just as Republicans
were beginning to eye the 2000 presidential race in earnest, the vice
president offered up a whopper of a tall tale in which he claimed to
have invented the Internet."
</dd>
<dt><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20001027190912/http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39301,00.html" target="3e2c48059737d08ba99d40c49cda40f5">The Mother of Gore's Invention</a>
</dt>
<dd>
A much later <em>Wired News</em> article by Declan McCullagh, Oct. 17, 2000,
stating:<br />

Quote:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39301,00.html
The Mother of Gore's Invention
By Declan McCullagh| Also by this reporter
03:00 AM Oct, 17, 2000

WASHINGTON -- If it's true that Al Gore created the Internet, then I created the "Al Gore created the Internet" story.

I was the first reporter to question the vice president's improvident boast, way back when he made it in early 1999.

Since then, the story's become far more than just a staple of late-night Letterman jokes: It's now as much a part of the American political firmament as the incident involving that other vice president, a schoolchild, and a very unfortunate spelling of potato.

Poor Al. For a presidential wannabe who prides himself on a sober command of the brow-furrowing nuances of technology policy, being the butt of all these jokes has proven something of a setback.

I mean, who can hear the veep talk up the future of the Internet nowadays without feeling an urge to stifle some disrespectful giggles? It would be like listening to Dan Quayle doing a please-take-me-seriously stump speech at an Idaho potato farm......

....Which brings us to an important question: Are the countless jibes at Al's expense truly justified? Did he really play a key part in the development of the Net?

The short answer is that while even his supporters admit the vice president has an unfortunate tendency to exaggerate, <h3>the truth is that Gore never did claim to have "invented" the Internet.</h3>

During a March 1999 CNN interview, while trying to differentiate himself from rival Bill Bradley, Gore boasted: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

That statement was enough to convince me, with the encouragement of my then-editor James Glave, to write a brief article that questioned the vice president's claim. Republicans on Capitol Hill noticed the Wired News writeup and started faxing around tongue-in-cheek press releases --and other journalists picked up the story too.

My article never used the word "invented," but it didn't take long for Gore's claim to morph into something he never intended.

The terrible irony in this exchange is that while <b>Gore certainly didn't create the Internet, he was one of the first politicians to realize that those bearded, bespectacled researchers were busy crafting something that could, just maybe, become pretty important.

In January 1994, Gore gave a landmark speech at UCLA about the "information superhighway.">/b>

Many portions -- discussions of universal service, wiring classrooms to the Net, and antitrust actions -- are surprisingly relevant even today. (That's an impressive enough feat that we might even forgive Gore his tortured metaphors such as "road kill on the information superhighway" and "parked at the curb" on the information superhighway.).....

The basic debunking of the story:

<dl>
<dt><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20040104090503/http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.Al.Gore.and.the.Inte.html" target="3c28c921bb5f1bbd7776691d87cf7ad1">Al Gore and The Internet</a>
</dt>
<dd>
<em>Red Rock Eater News Service</em>, Phil Agre, Mar. 28 2000<br />
"That Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet has got to be the
most successful flat-out lie since, well, the last one."
</dd>
<dt><a href="http://dir.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/index.html" target="046a3b7b59ebc53f9a105bea32d8ba37">Did Gore invent the Internet?</a>

</dt>
<dd>
<em>Salon</em>, Scott Rosenberg, Oct. 5, 2000<br />
"Actually, the vice president never claimed to have done so -- but he did help the Net along. Some people would rather forget that."
</dd>

<h3>Three internet founders, Kahm, Cerf, and Farber, vouch for Al Gore:</h3>
<dt><a href="http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200009/msg00052.html" target="9c036d9a9a6c58ec87af8ad7dbc5fb75">Al Gore's support of the Internet, by V.Cerf and B.Kahn [ I second this djf]</a>
</dt>
<dd>
Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, seconded by Dave Farber, Sep 28 2000<br />
"Bob and I believe that the vice president deserves significant
credit for his early recognition of the importance of what has
become the Internet."
</dd>
</dl>

Quote:

http://www.computerhistory.org/exhib...tory_70s.shtml
<b>1973

....<b>Bob Kahn moves from BBN to DARPA to work for Larry Roberts, and his first self-assigned task is the interconnection of the ARPANET with other networks. He enlists Vint Cerf</b>, who has been teaching at Stanford. The problem is that ARPANET, radio-based PRnet, and SATNET all have different interfaces, packet sizes, labeling, conventions and transmission rates. Linking them together is very difficult.

Kahn and Cerf set about designing a net-to-net connection protocol. Cerf leads the newly formed International Network Working Group. In September 1973, the two give their first paper on the new Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) ......

<b>1979</b>

.....Larry Landweber at Wisconsin holds a meeting with six other universities to discuss the possibility of building a Computer Science Research Network to be called CSNET. Bob Kahn attends as an advisor from DARPA, and Kent Curtis attends from NSF’s computer research programs. The idea evolves over the summer between Landweber, Peter Denning (Purdue), <b>Dave Farber</b> (Delaware), and Tony Hearn (Utah).

In November, the group submits a proposal to NSF to fund a consortium of eleven universities at an estimated cost of $3 million over five years. This is viewed as too costly by the NSF......

More debunking of the story:

<dl>
<dt><a href="http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/" target="f1127dfe2e13b74be30bfda834313487">Al Gore and the Creation of the Internet</a>
</dt>
<dd>
<em>First Monday</em>, Richard Wiggins, October 2000<br />

"This article explores how the perception arose that Gore in essence
padded his resume by claiming to have invented the Internet. We will
then explore Gore's actual record, in particular as a U.S. Senator in
the late 1980s, as an advocate for high-speed national
networking. Finally we will examine this case as an example of the
trivialization of discourse and debate in American politics."
</dd>

<dt><a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/h032699_1.shtml" target="2dcf118b56cae86eaf1b70e6e70e1069">Dick Armey faxed out some Internet spin. The press corps typed it up.</a>
</dt>
<dd>

<em>Daily Howler</em> March 26 1999<br />
"Did Vice President Gore "invent the Internet?" Better yet: Did he say
that he did?"
</dd>

<dt><a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0004.parry.html" target="6ffe2deee0dbbe08036a65ce1cade418">He's No Pinocchio - How the press has exaggerated Al Gore's exaggerations</a>
</dt>
<dd>
<em>Washington Monthly</em>, Robert Parry, Apr. 2000<br />
"But an examination of dozens of these articles, which purport to
detail the chief cases of Gore's exaggerations and lies, finds
journalists often engaging in their own exaggerations or
even publishing outright falsehoods about Gore."
</dd>

</dl>

Yet more debunking of the story:

<dl>
<dt><a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/h032999_1.shtml" target="fe8be7f17450aa86f7377700df197caa">What Gore had said wasn't silly enough. So Dick Armey--and the press corps--reinvented it.</a>
</dt>
<dd>
<em>Daily Howler</em>, Mar. 29 1999<br />
"Why didn't Blitzer challenge Gore's remark? Why didn't journalists
comment originally? Easy. They didn't do so because what Gore had said
wasn't that far off--until, with the help of credulous scribes, Dick
Armey reinvented the story."
</dd>
<dt><a href="http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml" target="811d69073e35efa90cf8c81680fa7acc">Inventing Invented The Internet!</a>
</dt>
<dd>

<em>Daily Howler</em>, Dec. 3, 2002<br />
"No one said Boo about Gore's remark. Then, the RNC spin-points arrived"
</dd>
</dl>

Detailed Internet-history debunking of the story:

<dl>
<dt><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20030815205809/http://swexpert.com/C7/SE.C7.MAY.99.pdf" target="fc7ed6d1c56a338337ef1da9814c55eb">Revisionist Internet History</a>
</dt>
<dd>
<em>Matrix News</em>, John S. Quarterman, April 1999<br />

"Almost all of the complaints I've seen about Gore's statement do not
come from the people who should have the most to say about it. The one
who should know as well as anybody, Vint Cerf, had quite a different
opinion, ..."
</dd>
</dl>

Study of the story:

<dl>
<dt><a href="http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/research_programs/ppt/papers/Gore412.pdf" target="5eb3e3dc7ecfa5d1f532855c650608ce">When Truth Doesn't Win in the Marketplace of Ideas: Entrapping Schemas, Gore, and the Internet</a>
</dt>
<dd>
Chip Heath & Jonathan Bendor,
Stanford University,
March 10, 2003<br />
"... we study an example where Al Gore was falsely attributed with saying
that he "invented the internet." We show that the false version of
Gore's statement dominated the true one in mainstream political
discourse by a wide margin. This is a clear failure in the marketplace
of ideas, which we document in detail."
</dd>
</dl>

Last updated: Fri Apr 28 09:14:05 EDT 2006

Quote:

THE BILL GATES BET FUSING TVS, PCS, PHONES A SURE THING; [NORTH SPORTS FINAL Edition]
James Coates, Tribune Staff Writer.. Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext). Chicago, Ill.: Oct 21, 1993. pg. 1

.....Considered a visionary since he formed Microsoft before he was old enough to vote, Gates said the coming web of cable-telephone-computer links isn't exactly an electronic or <b>information "superhighway," a name frequently used by Vice President Al Gore</b>, who heads the president's technology task force.

"It's not a highway, because governments build highways, and I certainly don't want the government to build this," said Gates.

He added, "It's not a highway, because on a highway everybody goes down the same road. This is more like a lot of country lanes."

But while he dislikes the name, Gates is enraptured by the idea....

Quote:

The Internet-This Year's Virtual Favorite for `Man of the Year'; [Home Edition]
MICHAEL SCHRAGE. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec 23, 1993. pg. 1

With holiday hindsight, Time magazine's decision a decade ago to name the computer as its "Man of the Year" doesn't look half bad. This year, Time's Zeitgeist award should go to a technology that's got more character, influence and complexity than any purely human contender.

It's a uniquely American medium that's grown more rapidly than John Malone's TCI ever did; that's even more global than Ted (1991 Man of the Year) Turner's CNN, and is light-years more interactive than Barry Diller's QVC Network, with or without Paramount.

It's called the Internet and there has never been a mass medium quite like it.

No one really "owns" the Internet, and no one really "manages" it. But over the past year, it has exploded into public consciousness as the multimedia phenomenon that merits serious attention from anyone who wants to understand what the future will look like.

In barely 12 months, the Internet has gone from a technovelty to a chic media cliche. The Net became a front-page story in every major newspaper in America (including this one); cover story for magazines such as the New Republic; a standing reference on CNN, and, inevitably, the inspiration for a New Yorker cartoon-two canines at a keyboard, with one pooch saying to the other, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

<b>When Al Gore speechifies about-all together now!-"The Information Superhighway,"</b> when Bell Atlantic Chairman Ray Smith waxes lyrical about his company's proposed $30-billion-plus acquisition of TCI, and when Barry Diller preaches the gospel of multimedia interactivity, their visions are based less on pie-in-the-sky promises than the Internet's astonishing growth and evolution. Media convergence? Internet defines the state of the art. Book publishers, magazine publishers and cable companies who hadn't even heard of the Internet two years ago now pump their media content into the Net. Can Sega and Nintendo be far behind?

Originally designed 25 years ago to be the computer network for the Pentagon's research community, Internet has evolved into the most important computer network in the world...... It is often cheaper to log on to Internet than to subscribe to cable TV.

But far more important than any information it carries are the communities that Internet creates. The Internet is more about relationships between people than data bursts between machines. .....De Tocqueville would marvel-but perhaps not be surprised-at the Internet as the natural technological extension of those dual American ideals, democracy and the frontier.

In fact, the Internet embodies just the kind of paradoxes that Americans are so good at and the rest of the world finds so irresistible. .... It's a network for the elite, yet it's very egalitarian.

There's no real government, yet no real anarchy. It's a creature of government planners that's also the soul of new enterprise and entrepreneurship. It's a product of Cold War funding that has become a virtual playground for children of all ages. The brightest scientists in the world use it as a medium for collaboration. Businesses want to turn it into a marketplace. There's pornography, and there's the Bible. People have best friends there that they've never met in person. Even the French, despite their fears of American technological imperialism, want to post imagery of their art treasures on the Net.

The Internet has been relentlessly growing and succeeding because it represents everything that's best about America.....

Of course, the Internet now faces precisely the same kinds of questions and doubts that inevitably confront any growing community:

* Just how commercial will the Internet become when the Barry Dillers and Raymond Smiths decide to take a byte?...

....In many respects, making the Internet "Man of the Year" would be less a recapitulation of Time's 1982 award to the computer than a reminder of Time's first "Man of the Year" in 1927-Charles Lindbergh. Then, an adventurous American and a new technology captured the imagination of the world. Today, it's only appropriate that we have an adventurous community and a new technology that's doing the same thing.

Quote:

U.S. Calls for Creation of Global Computing Network Communications: Gore urges nations to work together to link homes, schools and offices around the world.; [Home Edition]
Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Mar 22, 1994. pg. 3

The United States urged all nations Monday to help build a "network of networks" that could pump billions of dollars into the world's economy by linking computers in homes, schools and offices around the globe.

Vice President Al Gore told a U.N.-sponsored conference on telecommunications development that the world has the financial and technical resources to spin such a web, which he called a "global information infrastructure."

"We now can at last create a planetary information network that transmits messages and images with the speed of light from the largest city to the smallest village on every continent," Gore said.

According to the United States, a world computing network could be built and run by the private sector.

Gore noted in his speech that the network is already being built in bits and pieces as fiber-optic cable is laid under seas and across continents.

His announcement coincided with the creation of a joint venture between Microsoft and McCaw Cellular that appears to share the global network philosophy.

Bill Gates, founder and chairman of Microsoft, the world's biggest software company, and Craig McCaw, who built McCaw Cellular Communications into the largest cellular telephone company in the country, formed Teledesic Corp.

The new company, to be based in Kirkland, Wash., is proposing to build a $9-billion system of 840 small satellites that would circle the globe to form a communications network.

*

In his speech to an audience including some of the world's top policy-makers and the biggest names in the communications industry, Gore said the United States will throw its weight behind the global network project.

He described a vision of an intelligent web capable of improving international communications, of raising businesses' productivity, taking education to the farthest corners of the world and even promoting representative democracy.

"The global economy will also be be driven by the growth of the Information Age. Hundreds of billions of dollars can be added to world growth if we commit to the" network, Gore said.

The nine-day conference was organized by the International Telecommunications Union, a U.N. body with 182 members. It will also work on an action plan to extend modern communications to the least-developed countries.

According to the ITU, despite numerous technological breakthroughs and the fact that telecommunications have proved to be a profitable venture around the world, there is a huge gap between rich and poor nations.

While the 24 high-income developed countries have 70% of the world's telephone lines and only 15% of its population, ITU Secretary General Pekka Tarjanne said that two-thirds of the world's homes still have no phones.

The ITU estimates the world must invest about $530 billion by the year 2000 to boost "tele-density"-a measure of main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants-to 14.5 from 10.

However, Tarjanne noted recent success stories among developing countries that have managed to build up their telecommunications, singling out Botswana, Turkey, South Korea and Chile.

"There is no blueprint for success, although there are common points that can be adopted by developing countries," he said.

*

Gore and Argentine President Carlos Saul Menem, who in 1990 opened his country's ailing telephone system to private-sector operators, spoke in favor of privatization and competition in telecommunications.

Gore noted that privatization has spurred development of telecommunications in dozens of countries, and he urged others to follow the lead of Argentina, Chile and Mexico.

"But privatization is not enough. Competition is needed as well," Gore said. "Today, there are many more technology options than in the past, and it is not only possible but desirable to have different companies running competing but interconnected networks."

Quote:

GOVERNMENT ON-LINE: NATIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW; [FINAL Edition]
Barbara J. Saffir. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: Sep 2, 1994. pg. a.21

INFO-GRAPHIC,,Twp CAPTION: When Vice President Gore released his first National Performance Review (NPR) report last September, more than 100,000 copies were downloaded electronically within a week. Gore, who sees widespread access to information technology as crucial to his "reinventing government" initiative, has long boasted an Internet e-mail address (vice.president@whitehouse.gov). He has made NPR information available through the Internet, on government bulletin boards (including FedWorld and Office of Personnel Management) and via commercial computer networks. The following shows how to obtain electronic versions of National Performance Review documents and how to communicate with NetResults, the "electronic arm" of NPR. 1) NETRESULTS NetResults, an organization of government employees and private citizens linked by computer, helps promote NPR's recommendations for improving government. Using computer networks as its primary vehicle, NetResults links government workers and other citizens to each other and to the information they need to achieve the changes recommended by NPR. NetResults also acts as an umbrella network, fostering the creation of subsidiary networks, such as IGNet. Internet path: gopher ace.esusda.gov Menus: go to Americans Communicating Electronically then to National Performance Review Information Note: Beginning Tuesday, NPR and NetResults will begin trials of its World Wide Web access (http://www.npr.gov) What is available: NPR announcements, reports, newsletters (called the "NPR Reinvention Roundtable"), success stories and information on NPR "Reinvention Councils" and working groups, such as the President's Management Council and Community Empowerment Board. Reports include the Executive Summary, "From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less" along with subject- and agency-specific reports as they become available. ....The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory worked with NetResults to create a colorful, point-and-click Internet environment that makes finding NPR information easier and more pleasant. + The Defense Evaluation Support Activity (DESA) group teamed up with NetResults to create a multimedia CD-ROM version of NPR's second annual report, due out Sept. 14. The disk is designed to come alive with videos, sound and words. The report will also be available in a paper version; in electronic text, accessible through the "old-fashioned" Internet; and in images and hypertext in a new hi-tech Windows-like Internet environment. + Vice President Gore and the NPR will host their first "electronic town meeting" this fall. The experimental Internet e-mail-based conference, which will be conducted over approximately two weeks, is designed to engage federal workers nationwide in National Performance Review activities. To obtain more information, send an Internet e-mail message to info@town-hall.ai.mit.edu. - By Barbara J. Saffir (saffirb@twp.com), with research assistance by Roland Matifas

Quote:

Senators Near Compromise on 'Information Highway'
Burgess, John. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Jul 10, 1991. pg. C1

Senators J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) and Albert Gore Jr (D-TN) have reached a compromise under which the White House would select the federal agencies to lead in the development of high-performance computers and a national network of "information highways."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=833922
And at the ninth annual international Webby Awards in New York this week, one particular Net figure finally received his due: Former Vice President Al Gore.

Officials at the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences honored Gore with the Webby Lifetime Achievement award in recognition of his pivotal role in the development of the Internet over the last 30 years.

Gore had been skewered during the 2000 presidential campaign for his remarks that suggested he was the Net's creator. But <b>Vinton Cerf, one of the scientists who helped craft the actual Internet architecture, acknowledged that Gore was responsible</b> for crafting important legislation and lending needed political support for "the information superhighway."

The former vice president accepted the award from Cerf. But like other Webby winners, the usually talkative Gore had to limit his acceptance speech to five words or less.

Thus, remarked Gore, "Please don't recount this vote."

Tiffany Shlain, founder and chairperson of the Webby Award

Quote:

http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/950327/art16.html
Chemical & Engineering News,
March 27, 1995
Policy Issues Permeate Efforts To Create Information Infrastructure
Wil Lepkowski,
C&EN Washington

....Also handy is NII's most recent progress report, which recounts information superhighway projects in the various government agencies. The Tennessee Valley Authority, for example, is linking schools within its region. The Small Business Administration is transferring Ballistic Missile Defense Organization encryption technology to business use....

.....The fascination to much of this is the politics. The new Republican majority in Congress has one vision of the information future; the Clinton-Gore Administration has another. The tension is bound to rise as the goals of NII under a Democratic Administration are played out against the "less-government-is-better" philosophy of Congress' Republican majority.

There already are clues. NTIA's budget for carrying out some of the above goals - its Telecommunications & Information Infrastructure Program - totaled $64 million for fiscal 1995. It includes matching grants for hospitals, schools, libraries, state and local governments, and various nonprofit institutions. In two recently enacted rescission packages, however, all those programs have been eliminated. Similar programs slated to be funded by other agencies face similar threats. <b>President Clinton will probably veto those cuts.</b>

The Gingrich school of information policy may be high on information's potential, but it is low on any federal government involvement in catalyzing its progress. That is consistent with the belief by Gingrich and PFF that the information revolution implies, even mandates, less government. Is that true? No one knows yet, but here is what one expert in the computer field has to say.

<b>Robert E. Kahn</b>, president of the Corporation for National Research Initiatives, Reston, Va., and one of the founders of the Internet, says: "It seems uncontested that governments have a fundamental role to play in the funding of advanced research and development which can push the frontiers of technology and knowledge. It also seems clear that governments must provide the necessary oversight to ensure that the standards process is fair and equitable.

"Governments must also take responsibility for helping to resolve problems that arise where independent decision-making by multiple countries intrudes on further interworking problems. The U.S. government must provide the leadership in many dimensions, including the removal of barriers where they inhibit and can be removed; the insertion of legal, security, or regulatory mechanisms where the national interest so dictates; and the direct stimulation of public-interest sectors that require and merit government assistance," Kahn says.

<b>Right now, the components of that Global Information Infrastructure are plodding toward Gore's goal</b> of seamlessness through NII by its various task forces coordinated in the Commerce Department. All reports on the subject say it won't happen overnight and will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The goal is to have the television set, for example, give way to computers receiving broadband signals via satellite and onto fiber-optic cable from everywhere in the world. Interactivity, not couch potatoism, it is promised, will be the characteristic of the new age.

<b>Gore's NII lists several categories in which information is part of public policy:</b>

* Telecommunications, broadcasting, and satellite transmission.
* International communications and information policy.
* Library and archives policy....

....The issues are as much social as technical and are only beginning to be fleshed out through the various committees and working groups that make up NII. "While industry is beginning to build the information superhighway," says a January report on NII prepared by the General Accounting Office (GAO), "little is known about how the superhighway will be structured and what services it will provide."

Quote:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/gore.html
Issue 14.05 - May 2006

<b>The Resurrection of Al Gore
He invented the Internet (sort of). He became President (almost). Now Al Gore has found his true calling: using the power of technology to save the world.</b>

One evening last December, in front of nearly 2,000 people at Stanford's Memorial Auditorium, Al Gore spoke in uncharacteristically personal and passionate terms about the failed quest that has dominated much of his adult life.......The audience was filled with Silicon Valley luminaries: Apple's Steve Jobs; Google's Larry Page and Eric Schmidt; Internet godfather Vint Cerf; Yahoo!'s Jerry Yang; venture capitalists John Doerr, Bill Draper, and Vinod Khosla; former Clinton administration defense secretary William Perry; and a cross section of CEOs, startup artists, techies, tinkerers, philanthropists, and investors of every political and ethnic stripe.....

<h3>What is it with Gore bashers? are they the sons of the MLK Jr. bashers?...why wasn't it enough for you that the thugs that you supported may have robbed Gore of the US presidency? ....and a fine choice the man you supported, instead of Gore...turned out to be....yet....here you are...posting as if you know what you're talking about.....AMAZING !!!</h3>

Quote:

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/...ess_and_al.php
About self-righteousness and Al Gore

13 Oct 2007 01:05 am

I am old enough... well, there are many ways to end that sentence, but for now: I am old enough to remember, from my school years, the disdainful reaction in my home town to the news that Martin Luther King had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.

The reaction was, of course, racial at its root. This was a majority-white, minority-Hispanic small town with very few black residents, which went for Barry Goldwater over Lyndon Johnson in the presidential election that same fall.

But the stated form of the objection concerned not King's race but his obnoxiousness as a man. He was a windbag. He was pompous and self-dramatizing, He was holier than thou. Plus, he had started getting involved where he didn't belong, in raising questions about the Vietnam War. Through the rest of Martin Luther King's life, the father of my best home-town friend always went out of his way to refer sneeringly to "Martin Luther Nobel."

As is the case now with some similar complaints about Al Gore, the criticisms weren't about nothing.

Gore can be pompous, lecturing, pedantic, and all the rest. I agree with the argument in his book The Assault on Reason but wish he made the point with fewer larded-in references to Jurgen Habermas. (Think of of how, yes, Bill Clinton would make similar points about the simplifications and distortions of today's nutty media world.) But in retrospect the criticisms of King look very small, and -- without equating the stature of the two men -- I think something similar will be true regarding Gore.....

Willravel · 10-14-2007, 09:38 PM

Are you really surprised that Ustwo is bashing Gore? He'd bash Gandhi. Actually I think he has bashed Gandhi.

10-13-2007, 12:31 PM	#44 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Fear not, global warming deniers. The nobel prize of $1.5 million to Gore (Alliance for Climate Protection) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is still a paltry amount compared to the more than $6 million that Exxon/Mobile Foundation and others spend in grants to spread disinformation on global warming. Welcome back Host __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-13-2007, 03:43 PM	#51 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I didn't bring up Carters idiocy, I was responding. As for Dr. Gray, of course its important to discredit the messenger. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-13-2007, 03:44 PM	#52 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	and of course, you dont address his "credientials" __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-13-2007, 07:24 PM	#59 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	To be perfectly frank... who gives a rat's ass about WHY global warming is occurring? The point is, it's happening whether from manmade causes, natural causes, or a combination of the two (and I'm betting the latter with absolutely no supporting reasons). The point is... why shouldn't we be more responsible about the environment? Because it might cost some big rich oil companies more time or money? Boo fucking hoo. The point is... we DO need alternate sources of energy. Because if it's 5 years or 50 or 500... natural oil sources will eventually dry up. And we are dependent on countries that produce oil. That's not good for the environment nor our political stance and actions. So, the point is... GIVE UP THE OIL DEPENDENCE AND LIVE MORE RESPONSIBLY. Who cares what camp you're in, just stop being a schmuck! Easier said than done, as I sit here on my electricity-powered laptop. But you get the general drift. Things need changing, and we're wasting time and energy arguing about WHY it needs changing. Even if global warming isn't caused solely by all the factors Gore talked about, why does that matter? Aren't those behaviors still negative for other reasons? Be reasonable. So you hate Democrats or politicians or whatever. Do you hate living with clean air? Do you hate reducing our dependence on countries that hate us? Do you hate reducing carcinogenic effects on the populace? Don't be an idiot. You people are politicizing things that are far beyond the petty bullshit of politics and our so-called two party system. Cut it out. Be logical, please. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

10-13-2007, 08:17 PM	#61 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Perhaps the award selection committee considered the fact that "this issue has been in the forefront of discussion for over 30 years" and very little has been done beyond studies and more studies: "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" Will the award help stimulate action....or will we just have more studies for the next 30 years? Who knows. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-13-2007 at 08:22 PM..

10-13-2007, 11:46 AM	#41 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	It's not that easy, but it is that simple. Whoever is the current leader of this country drives the current of the country, if, by nothing else, his power of the pen. Influence in Washington is everything, as is perception. Confidence(or lack thereof) in a perceived presidential stance, regardless of what that stance is in reality, drives the stock market, the legislation process and the judicial climate. And it drives the voters one way or another, furthering the influences in Washington. As for the hostages, many reports state that it was Reagan's clandestine 'arms for hostages' negotiations that got them home. Carter wouldn't make deals, thinking 'talking' would do it. He by no means got them home. They were released the day of Reagan's inauguration, probably as promised due to those 'discussions'. Reagan was so teflon that, while the Iran-Contra hearings could have caused him to pull a Nixon, he was largely forgiven because of the end results.(Many were calling for his head, impeachment, etc.) How'd we get to this from Gore getting the Nobel?? Guess that's how important we find it....

10-13-2007, 04:59 PM	#56 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Global climate change is not strictly human, but to deny the effect by humans ignores the evidence. It's because that fact is being hidden by interested parties that Gore's accomplishment is so great. Despite the actions of the Republican party to hide, discredit, or lie about global warming and the overwhelming evidence, Gore has made sure that everyone has access to good information. Despite the bloggers (not scientists) who discredit An Inconvenient Truth, the information is reaching the people. It's a good thing, and he surely earned the prize.

10-13-2007, 06:54 PM	#58 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	Of course there was legislation to make the changes. (Good grief, what is it with these smarmy little digs of presumptuous inuendo?) Lives were being affected and, ultimately, industry. (Try backing up your toilet and see if it doesn't affect more than just your bathroom, for an analogy). The crux of the matter is not what humans contribute to global warming, it's how much is manmade vs. cyclical. Do we affect hurricanes? No. Little is mentioned of the actual changing of the earth's shape in these types of debates-it's no longer a perfect sphere; that, too, affects global climatic changes. Are humans responsible for the almost imperceptible moving north of the equator? No. How much does that affect global climate change vs. manmade pollutants, though? Envision a seesaw with cyclical climate vs manmade and watch it sway back and forth..... The debates will go on because the earth is dynamic, the solar system is dynamic and data collecting is ongoing. In the meantime, volcanoes continue to erupt, land masses shift and the sun loses heat. Gore, et al, would have you believe mankind can change all that and thus, the Chicken Little syndrome. In one of my links, mention is made that the US supposedly contributes to about 24% of the earth's pollutants. Not good, of course. But it's not 76% and I daresay it's been going down since that report and Bush reportedly rejected the Kyoto coalition because he's of the opinion we can do better(of course, Bush-bashers say nay to that idea and claim he's only rejecting it because of big business. shrug) Of that I have no opinion at all, but as a whole, we are doing a helluva lot better than 25 years back and still the climate changes. Previous thought that it's the result of over 100 years ago seemingly is being dropped by some sources-others contend the worst of the height of the Industrial Revolution will linger for centuries and that the lack of reversal is due to not being diligent enough(that seesaw thing again). Somewhere in the middle of both trains of thought is probably where the truth lies. DDT, rampant burning of fossil fuels, copper and other metals being mined, the dumping of waste into public waterways-these all had lingering affects to life. Cars have to meet or exceed regulated emissions, we no longer have unleaded gas (don't get me started on that crapola ethanol), old forest growth is being left alone for the most part(they really need to leave the redwoods alone), the US is acquiring more parkland and the public as a general whole has become more 'informed' with entire industries devoted to a green way of life. All this happened long before Gore jumped on the fuel-efficient bandwagon. But we still build roads and structures, still tear down smaller forests for shopping malls and I truly doubt Gore rides a bike across the country to give his speeches on global warming.

10-13-2007, 07:47 PM	#60 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	I don't think it should be political at all. But why it occurs is important. It affects policy at a governmental and international level. Personally, I think being environmentally responsible is not only an obligation but for individuals, it makes economic sense. I save money not using the hot water, not using the oven and clothes dryer constantly, turning off lights and not driving a gas-guzzler. My house stays cooler because there's trees around it (well, there were trees around it before the neighbors decided to chop'em down). It stays warmer in winter because the windows get sealed, thus less energy to heat it(plus the thermostat stays at 65). I'd rather see farmland be built on than have forests torn down for housing-at least the farmland is already cleared and, in fact, trees and plants on that land would be increased due to the building. Should I pay attention to a politician who travels the country by plane and car as he extolls the importance of political involvement in matters of the environment? I don't, so, no. Should a politician be given the Peace Prize for environmental work? No, if they want to reward environmental zealots, there should be a category for it. I do all the above, give to World Wildlife Fund when I can and I didn't need an Al Gore to tell me to. Maybe others do, but I'm of the opinion that either you give a shit or you don't. This issue has been in the forefront of discussion for over 30 years and one would have to have been living in a cave to not know something about it. On the other hand, living in a cave would be a true environmentalist....

10-13-2007, 08:38 PM	#62 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	I don't think 'very little has been done'. More can be done...but the strides made in the last 30 years or more have been huge. We have saved many species from certain extinction due to pesticides and hazardous environmental impact. The stripping of rainforests has been slowed. Stringent regulations have been put in place to control environmental hazards from industry. Recycling has become a way of life. More and more, alternative energy comes into play in both homes and business. Revitalization of many areas of the world has taken place( the Black Forest comes to mind here) Strip mining has decreased. Our biggest hurdle is dependency on fossil fuels. How cool would it be to see a new development with a windmill in every yard?

10-13-2007, 09:47 PM	#64 (permalink)
JohnBua Banned	Was this the same prize awarded to Yassar Arafat?

10-13-2007, 11:18 PM	#66 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:31 AM..

10-14-2007, 03:13 AM	#68 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	Bottom line, of course, is that the IPCC and Al Gore are correct. Thanks Al and IPCC, for your accurate reporting of the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

10-14-2007, 04:33 AM	#71 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Here is an inconvenient truth for those who like to rely on sites like JunkScience.com or Fox News (and PrisonPlanet.com) or videos like the Great Global Warming Swindle for their global warming information. These sites provide "remarks" by skeptical scientists but rarely, if ever (I cant find any) provide links to studies published in credible scientific journals or, at the very least, are peer reviewed. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because they arent published in credible scientific journals or peer reviewed? Just a thought. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-14-2007, 09:38 PM	#80 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Are you really surprised that Ustwo is bashing Gore? He'd bash Gandhi. Actually I think he has bashed Gandhi.