Gore and U.N. Panel Win Peace Prize for Climate Work

[Guest American Woman]

The judge found the movie to be reasonable: ....

Thank you for pointing out that the Judge did find the film to be reasonable; to quote the judge, "broadly accurate" and "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact." As for the nine significant errors, no article I've read has had "significant errors" in quotes, leading me to believe this is the media's take on it, a take which has been picked up by other media sources. On the other hand, the quotes that I used are actual quotes by the judge.

As for the errors, [Gore's spokeswoman] Kreider said, "Of the thousands of facts, the judge seemingly only took issue with a handful. We've got peer review studies that back up those facts. Link

The film did include thousands of facts. That only nine are being found questionable says a lot, even though it is still only the opinion of the judge, alleged errors, and the BBC correctly referred to them as such saying "The nine errors alleged by the judge..." The BBC also reports that the judge found "nine scientific errors," which it puts in quotes. It does not say 'nine significant errors.' Link

[CLRV]

The thing I like best about Gore getting the award is how apoplectic with rage the righties are over it all.

Never mind the anger and impotent frustraton of the rubes in here who are still stupid enough to ally themselves with the failed Bush administration (does anyone think they'd be poo-pooing the Nobel awards if Bush had won his nomination in 2003 instead of being so justifiably passed over). The blogosphere and the punditocracy (ie. the Republican Lie Machine) is going positively berserk and it's hilarious the lengths they're going to trying to denigrate this..

Pat Buchanan seethed on MSNBC that the Nobel awards is controlled by "Swedish socialists" (Earth to Pat, the awards come out of Oslo, Norway). Michelle Malkin, fresh from stalking a sick child and her family over the SCHIP debate, had to dig so deep as to point out that Czech president Vaclav Klaus was ‘somewhat surprised’ that Gore received the prize (would she otherwise care what the Czech president said about anything?) Talk about reaching.

The people who are currently objecting the loudest about the so-called triumph of politics over science are the ones who have been trying the hardest to bury this scientific debate in politics from day one and are still attempting to do so. Their frustration arises from the fact that it's not working. The truth is getting out and people are waking up to reality.

Gore got the award not for the science (that was done by the reputable scientists with whom he shares the award -- some of the Canadian . Gore got the award for the way he has gotten the science through the bullshit barrier erected by the liars of the rightwing agenda. Their rage and ranting today is music to my ears and balm to my spirit.

Rave on, righties. Rave on...

[sharkman]

A British judge, eh? Sounds like a real scientific sort of chap to me.

But let's go with this judge's claims. Which ones are "incorrect" and which ones are "not proven?" As for the ones he claims are incorrect, where is his proof?

Until I have that information, the opinion of this unknown judge means nothing to me.

Uh, you don't think that a judge is scientific enough, but of course a failed politician, namely Gore, is. :lol:

Any documentarian who makes not one or two, but nine major gaffs is not worth listening to much less handing awards to. Add to the mix that Gore is quoted as saying it's okay to lie to people about Global Warming in order to get necessary changes made, and you have a snake oil salesman, which is pretty much what a failed politician is anyway.

[Guest American Woman]

Sounds as if you're enjoying Gore's win as much as I am, CLRV, so this excerpt might bring a smile to your face, too:

Frosty E. Hardison, a computer consultant and evangelical Christian, was outraged when he learned that the film would be shown in his daughter's seventh-grade science class. He sent an e-mail to the school board, declaring, "No, you will not teach or show that propagandist Al Gore video to my child, blaming our nation -- the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet -- for global warming."

Edited October 14, 2007 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

I haven'r seen the film nor am I likely too unless I am suffering from severe insomnia, but if the movie was accompanied by a before and after explanation of the errors in the film and the ramifications of making a decision based on those errors was explained to the students, I don't have any problem with this worthless piece of propaganda being shown to american children.

On a similar note, there was a Canadian film about 15, maybe more years ago called "If you love this Planet".

It won an Oscar. It was also banned by the US state dept. as State sponsored propaganda. That being said, I would lioke to point out that the NFB operates at arms length from the goiv't, but I think we will never have a better time to et even with the US over that banning (which cost the producers and directers big bucks)....So I say.....

CANADA, BAN THE GORE PROPAGANDA FILM!

[maldon_road]

Thank you for pointing out that the Judge did find the film to be reasonable; to quote the judge, "broadly accurate" and "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact." As for the nine significant errors, no article I've read has had "significant errors" in quotes, leading me to believe this is the media's take on it, a take which has been picked up by other media sources. On the other hand, the quotes that I used are actual quotes by the judge.

The judge also said

Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision†presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

And that plus the errors will guarantee that Al Gore will never become President of the United States

[jazzer]

My money is on the majority of climatologists world wide that verify much of what Gore has presented. Opinions on this thread are just that.

[Guest American Woman]

I haven'r seen the film nor am I likely too unless I am suffering from severe insomnia, but if the movie was accompanied by a before and after explanation of the errors in the film and the ramifications of making a decision based on those errors was explained to the students, I don't have any problem with this worthless piece of propaganda being shown to american children.

On a similar note, there was a Canadian film about 15, maybe more years ago called "If you love this Planet".

It won an Oscar. It was also banned by the US state dept. as State sponsored propaganda. That being said, I would lioke to point out that the NFB operates at arms length from the goiv't, but I think we will never have a better time to et even with the US over that banning (which cost the producers and directers big bucks)....So I say.....

CANADA, BAN THE GORE PROPAGANDA FILM!

Another critic who hasn't seen the film.

Sorry, but the film isn't just being shown in America and across Britain, it's also being shown across Canada.

My money is on the majority of climatologists world wide that verify much of what Gore has presented. Opinions on this thread are just that.

Yep. Opinions based on what one would like to believe, it would seem.

I saw the film and it actually did a lot to open my eyes to the danger of global warming.

Edited October 14, 2007 by American Woman

[CLRV]

What amazes me is that we're still having the debate; that it *takes* a movie to get people thinking about Climate Change.

Just look out the f*cking WINDOW, folks. It's right there in front of you...

[bush_cheney2004]

What amazes me is that we're still having the debate; that it *takes* a movie to get people thinking about Climate Change.

Just look out the f*cking WINDOW, folks. It's right there in front of you...

Huh? I looked out the window and saw many SUVs...they have automatic climate control for passenger and driver!

Just because people think about it doesn't mean they want to change anything. Is that a crime?

[CLRV]

Oh yes, and a little present for the American Woman: that court case in the UK was not some poor father taking on Big Brother Government for the sake of his kids. It was a politically and economically motivated attack on the film, carried out by a conservative politician and funded by businesses with direct interests in keeping the lid on the realities of climate change. In other words, it's politics attempting to trump science.

Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film

Fuel and mining magnate backed UK challenge to An Inconvenient Truth

The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.

(...)

The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies. He was also supported by a Conservative councillor in Hampshire, Derek Tipp.

(...)

Records filed at the Electoral Commission show the New Party has received nearly all of its money - almost £1m between 2004 and 2006 - from Cloburn Quarry Limited, based in Lanarkshire

What's more, this isn't the first time these hucksters have used their wealth and political influence to spread disinformaton.

In 2004 the alliance co-authored a report with the George C Marshall Institute, a US body funded by Exxon Mobil, that attacked climate change claims. 'Climate change science has fallen victim to heated political and media rhetoric ... the result is extensive misunderstanding,' the report's authors said.

Why... those boldfaced words are almost the *exact* same words used by half of the Gore denouncers in this thread, aren't they? Go back and look. It's almost word for word. Almost as if they were... oh, I dunno, PARROTS or something. Almost as if they didn't have an original thought in their poor empty heads, but were just spewing back what they'd been told without any investigation; these great self-professed advocates of the Universal Doubt and the Scientific Method.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh yes, and a little present for the American Woman: that court case in the UK was not some poor father taking on Big Brother Government for the sake of his kids. It was a politically and economically motivated attack on the film, carried out by a conservative politician and funded by businesses with direct interests in keeping the lid on the realities of climate change. In other words, it's politics attempting to trump science.

Thank you for that information, CLRV. I did some research on the judge, but didn't think to do any on the father objecting to the film being shown. For some reason I just took him at face value. I can see now that was a big mistake. Seems to me I remember reading that this man received $200,000 from the court in court costs. If he did, since it was funded by business interests, I wonder if he actually made money on the deal? *

Anyway, it shows the lengths some will go to in order to try to discredit Gore/the reality of global warming and the role we humans play in it.

*Edited to add:

The judge awarded Mr Dimmock two-thirds of his estimated legal costs of more than £200,000, against the government. Link

Edited October 15, 2007 by American Woman

[maldon_road]

Oh yes, and a little present for the American Woman: that court case in the UK was not some poor father taking on Big Brother Government for the sake of his kids. It was a politically and economically motivated attack on the film, carried out by a conservative politician and funded by businesses with direct interests in keeping the lid on the realities of climate change. In other words, it's politics attempting to trump science.

The important thing about this judgment is not who financed it (I never expected that the plaintiff was some pro-environment type) or the fact that the film has errors - although the latter will hurt Gore in any political ambitions he might have.

The most important thing is that the film has been judged to be "political" and that kids should be shown a balanced approached to global warming. This should stop school boards from willy-nilly just showing the film without context. Already groups in the US are taking action against school boards doing just that.

In a way I hope Al does throw his hat in the ring. Not that I care about his views on immigration, Iraq or health care but being the "Green" candidate he will be forced to debate the "son-of-Kyoto" UN-sponsored approach with Bush's Gang of Six (or is it Seven?). If Gore goes with Kyoto II he is going to widely criticized for endorsing something that could Americans untold billions.

[scribblet]

Exactly, and the balanced approach is missing.

I don't think anyone is denying that there is climate change, or denying that we need to stop polluting. What some feel, including myself, is that there is a lot of hysteria and the real question is, how much is man really affecting the climate. Again, the earth has been warmer than this, and has been much colder, we know the earth cycles, what we cannot do is alter nature's course. We might be able to slow it down a tad, and we surely can clean up our act, but what we cannot do is alter nature.

[jbg]

What amazes me is that we're still having the debate; that it *takes* a movie to get people thinking about Climate Change.

Just look out the f*cking WINDOW, folks. It's right there in front of you...

By that evidence we're heading for an Ice Age. Since the beginning of the millenium, the winters of 2000-1, 2002-3, 2003-4, and 2004-5 have been well below normal in the New York City area. The summers of 2000, 2003, 2004, and 2007 have been below normal, as was 2001 until mid-August. 2006 was near normal, leaving 2002 and 2005 as the only hot summers. For the first time in recorded history, New York City exceeded 40 inches of snow four winters in a row, 2002-3, 2003-4, 2004-5 and 2005-6 (the latter, temperature-wse was above normal). The winter of 2006-7 was above normal through about January 17, and then below normal through Victoria Day.

I don't know what you're talking about and why the need for profanity.

[maldon_road]

For the first time in recorded history, New York City exceeded 40 inches of snow four winters in a row, 2002-3, 2003-4, 2004-5 and 2005-6

That's 100 Trudeaumeters.

I once read that the average annual NYC snowfall was 15".

[margrace]

That's 100 Trudeaumeters.

I once read that the average annual NYC snowfall was 15".

On an American science show they also said that they are able now to grow weather sensative plants overwinter that they could not grow ten years ago. Being a farmer/gardener I am aware of these Changes. They also said that the weather Zones governing weather sensatives plants has also gone up on area for all of North America. Thats quite a change in 10 years.

[moderateamericain]

I actually do believe in global warming, I don't necessarily buy into a sudden and dramatic life ending shift in climate but there is definetly a difference in climate that has been noticible even in my lifetime. I think that organizations that completely debunk global warming are most likely on the payroll of Big Industry. Such as Coal, oil, and steel. You have to keep in mind that if we REALLY took steps to pair down are gas emissions we would cut heavily into the profits of Fuel providers. Economic's trumps virtue every single time. History has taught us that.

[Guest American Woman]

On an American science show they also said that they are able now to grow weather sensative plants overwinter that they could not grow ten years ago. Being a farmer/gardener I am aware of these Changes. They also said that the weather Zones governing weather sensatives plants has also gone up on area for all of North America. Thats quite a change in 10 years.

I've seen a real change in weather/climate in my life time. Along with the change of length of seasons and milder temps, I'm seeing more severe storms. Seems we don't have just a regular ol' thunderstorm any more. They are always preceded with warnings of severe lightening, large hail, damaging winds, etc. and we do frequently get such strong winds now.

Of course some are going to say Gore's film is "political" because just about anything controversial is deemed political these days. But he's accomplished what he wanted to accomplish. Actually I'm sure he's accomplished more than he ever hoped.

Edited October 15, 2007 by American Woman

[sharkman]

Uh, no, Gore wanted everyone in hybrid or electric cars, with paper made out of dirt and everyone reading by candlelight while he used enough power at his mansion to make a complete hypocrite out of himself. His goals would quite simple end our economies and bring about a depression the likes of which the world has never seen.

All because the weather is changing, we must run for our lives? When mother nature begins the cycle of cooling off(which she has done at least twice in the last 100 years after warming up with accompanying level 5 hurricanes in the 30s and 60s), then Gore and his ilk will start warning of Global Cooling disasters. Oh wait., they've already started with the catch all phrase, 'climate change'. If some people want to swallow this pablum that is fine, but keep your 'religion' to yourself, because that's all it is.

AM, I noted once already your criticism of the judge who noted 9 gaffs in Gore's movie, saying you don't think he's scientific enough. Apparently you think a failed politician(Gore) is.

[maldon_road]

Of course some are going to say Gore's film is "political" because just about anything controversial is deemed political these days. But he's accomplished what he wanted to accomplish. Actually I'm sure he's accomplished more than he ever hoped.

Right now Gore has been the choirmaster preaching to the choristers. Which includes the Nobel Committee.

Gore does not have a hope of convincing the Republicans that global warming is for real. But if Gore actually wants to do something useful he will be talking to Mr Obama, Ms Clinton and Mr Edwards to make the environment the key issue in next year's election.

Will any of them want to be seen with him?

[jbg]

That's 100 Trudeaumeters.

I once read that the average annual NYC snowfall was 15".

About 24 inches, or 62 Trudeaumeters.

[maldon_road]

This is the kind of stuff people see. It's a response to our latest Nobel laureate. Who can tell if there is any legitimacy or if it's just a load of twaddle?

An Inconvenient Price

....Global warming was blamed for 35,000 deaths in Europe's August 2003 heat wave. Cold, however, has caused 25,000 deaths a year recently in England and Wales—47,000 in each winter from 1998 to 2000. In Europe, cold kills more than seven times as many as heat does. Worldwide, moderate warming will, on balance, save more lives than it will cost—by a 9-to-1 ratio in China and India. So, if substantially cutting carbon dioxide reverses warming, that will mean a large net loss of life globally.

How cool do we want the world to be? As cool as it was when the Arctic ice pack extended so far south that Eskimos in kayaks landed in Scotland? Just cool enough to prevent the oceans from inundating us?

The U.N.'s 2007 report estimates that by 2100, sea levels will rise about a foot—as much as they have risen since 1860. That will mean a number of local problems, not a planetary crisis. More people now live near coasts (which is why hurricanes have become more costly; they have not become more frequent or violent), but protecting people and property from the sea would be far less costly than attempting to turn down the planet's thermostat?

http://magazine-directory.com/Newsweek.htm

Edited October 16, 2007 by maldon_road

[stevoh]

Gore does not have a hope of convincing the Republicans that global warming is for real.

Global warming is real. Temperature measurements, satelite and ground prove it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satelli...emperatures.png

The question is not whether the global temperature is increasing, it is. The question is how much our release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is influencing that increase. In other words, is the increase part of the natural warming/cooling cycle of the earth, or is it due to human made greenhouse gas emissions.

[M.Dancer]

Thank you for that information, CLRV. I did some research on the judge, but didn't think to do any on the The judge awarded Mr Dimmock two-thirds of his estimated legal costs of more than ?200,000, against the government. Link

So lets get this straight, the new parrty website has the names of its biggest supporters....and then there is this one fellow, who owns a quarry company....

The owner of a quarry is BIG BUSINESS?

BTW...it was 200,000 POUNDs, not american pesos