IPPC and Al Gores Nobel Prize Deserved or a Sham?

Sham or no Sham

Undeserved
38
83%
Deserved
3
7%
Who's Al Gore?
5
11%
 
Total votes : 46

PostBy: stockingfull On: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:13 am

Well, if the information about his house is correct, I'd suggest Al Gore may be our example rather than our adversary! We can all burn coal with a clear conscience while we wrestle the facts and trends to the ground.

But, while it's true that there is still debate about how much of it is "our fault," there's no longer much serious debate about at least the fact of global warming. Don't forget, there's a credible school of thought that the warming might be much more rapid but for the screening effect of the particulates from Greg's aircraft in the upper atmosphere. This was discovered by a 1.5° spike in temps nationwide when the skies suddenly cleared after everything was grounded post-9/11. So we all owe thanks to Greg and his colleagues for the atmospheric "sunglasses" because things might be going quite a bit faster without them.

And, for those who think IPCC panel members are less credible because they were appointed by governments, what about researchers who have been paid by the energy lobby? I'd suggest that it's folly to assume that the predelictions of scientists and/or their sponsors ever can be entirely scrubbed from a debate like this. For example, Europeans, who stand to be profoundly affected if/when the Gulf Stream deviates and stops supplying heat to their continent, might understandably be a bit more concerned and therefore conservative about this than, say, the people in Georgia.

Ooops, maybe not Georgia.

What we have in common here is that we all burn nearly pure carbon, with some sulfur, and those aren't "fashionable" elements to be burning right now. And the poll in this thread shows that we definitely have our point of view! But it's not the media's fault; all they do is stoke a fire (figuratively speaking). Wanna make news? Prove Al wrong. And I don't for a second believe that the energy lobby needs our help in the effort to do that.

Fiber is good -- but methane is bad. Nukes generate clean energy but we can't let certain countries do that. The questions of our age don't lend themselves to the easy "white hat, black hat" answers we like. We should resist the forces trying to demagogue this issue -- from both sides -- and keep our minds open to the debate.

Maybe Vonnegut was right; humans are a very resourceful, aggressive species. The question is whether we're ultimately self-destructive. How we and our descendants handle this will tell the tale.
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

PostBy: Matthaus On: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:34 am

Pure science has no place in politics because it has no spin. Only that which is convenient will be presented. Kinda ironic considering the name of Al's work that got him nominated for the prize. Just remember that "Green" activism was developed by someone with a political agenda.

This discussion is very entertaining and even gets some of our fellow forum members a bit stirred up. In the final analysis we don't know what we don't know. The earth will form a scab over whatever wound we inflict and our efforts will have minimal effect.

Just remember, with respect to our species total time on earth, not that long ago an eclipse was the end of the world!

When Yanche and I were discussing the next good topic for the forum. He suggested a thread on what is environmentally right about us burning coal in our own homes. Maybe some effort on that one would be worth while?

Just my $.02 on this topic. :)
Matthaus
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Leisure Line WL110 Dual Fuel
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Leisure Line Lil' Heater (rental house)
Coal Size/Type: Rice and Buckwheat Anthracite

PostBy: Richard S. On: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:45 am

stockingfull wrote:So we all owe thanks to Greg and his colleagues for the atmospheric "sunglasses" because things might be going quite a bit faster without them.


Well we should all use airplanes for travel then, better yet coal fire planes, problem solved. :lol:

And, for those who think IPCC panel members are less credible because they were appointed by governments, what about researchers who have been paid by the energy lobby?


Just to be clear at least two of the Scientists in the article were members of the IPCC, the others also interviewed possibly not mentioned in the onine article claimed to not be on the payroll of any lobby or energy companies. As for their impatiality I really have no idea which is the biggest issue, who do you believe?

One top scientist comes out with some findings and is linked to Greenpeace, the other top scientist showing different interpretations is linked to energy lobby etc. If either comes to a conclusion that its not in line with the comapny funding their research its not going to see the light of day.

I really don't know and that's the problem, I don't trust what any of them have to say.
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite


PostBy: LsFarm On: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:00 pm

Someone go 'tickle' Mt St.Helens, or Krakatoa. Lets get a nice layer of volcanic ash enveloping the world, then we'll be praying for 'global warming'.

This thread started as a poll for our opinions about whether the Nobel prize was deserved by Al Gore. We have inevitably ventured away from this.

I think the best post so far was an analogy : Al only reiterated someone else's work, [the scientists], and selectively at that. Like giving Maddon a Heisman trophy for announcing a football game or two.

This award is NOT APPROPRIATE !! I'm seriously disappointed in The Nobel Prize 'board' of decision makers.

I do applaud Al for getting on the band wagon, after all he's making money, the 'hula-hoop' and 'pet-rock' craze have come and gone. He had to do something.. :twisted: to pay those awful utility bills on his home. What a hipocrite...

Greg L

.
LsFarm
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Self-built 'Big Bertha' SS Boiler
Baseburners & Antiques: Keystone 11, Art Garland

PostBy: Wood'nCoal On: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:08 pm

NEPAForum Admin wrote:
The inaccuracies pointed out in this movie are at some points so far off the mark it's ridiculous, it's nothing more than propaganda to advance the agenda of Al Gore. It's clearly intended to manipulate people.



What really gets my goat is the house comparison pointed to in previous post, If you want to lead you should do it by example. If you want to talk the talk you should walk the walk. Al Gore having a house that is consuming 10 times the amount of energy your average consumer does tells me he's obviously not concerned about it enough himself to make the sacrifices he wants others to endure.

If Al Gore wants to impress me he needs to clean up his own act before he starts pointing the finger at me.




Very well put, ADMIN.
Wood'nCoal
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: 1959 EFM 350
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Magnafire Mark I
Coal Size/Type: Rice and Chestnut
Other Heating: Fisher Fireplace Insert

PostBy: Richard S. On: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:22 pm

LsFarm wrote:I think the best post so far was an analogy : Al only reiterated someone else's work, [the scientists], and selectively at that.


And I'll add in a manipulative way, anybody can take selective numbers and prove whatever they want. This Fall has been unseasonably warm in my neck of the woods, Global Warming is coming!. Rewind to two winters ago which was abnormally cold, The Ice Age is coming, run for the equator.
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

PostBy: gambler On: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:39 pm

I remember in school during the late 60's and early 70's when Paul Ehrlich and gang were predicting the end of civilization; so totally wrong they shouldn't even be considered for discussion, but even today they still get on the morning TV shows. The 1-900 Psychic fortune tellers would be a better bet.

What happened to all the massive hurricanes that were to follow Katrina this season? See, people want to forget all the wrong predictions. The media is more than willing to publicize what they want the slant to be.

So now that cows are a bigger threat than cars, add that to the long list of what's going to do us all in. Wasn't the bird flu supposed to this year? SARS? I even heard old age is suspect for killing off a large part of the population.
gambler
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Leisure Line
Stove/Furnace Model: Pioneer

PostBy: coaledsweat On: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm

MERSA will solve all the problems.
coaledsweat
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

PostBy: stockingfull On: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:05 pm

Matthaus wrote:Pure science has no place in politics because it has no spin. Only that which is convenient will be presented.



When Yanche and I were discussing the next good topic for the forum. He suggested a thread on what is environmentally right about us burning coal in our own homes. Maybe some effort on that one would be worth while?

Just my $.02 on this topic. :)


It's interesting; in my business (trial practice), the theory is that the ONLY witnesses who are permitted to express their opinions to the jury are qualified experts, who may testify on complex issues on which the jury (or the court itself) needs their help in analyzing the facts. And the only reason the experts are permitted to state their opinion is that they theoretically would be testifying to the "single" answer which the science dictates on an issue in dispute.

Yeah, right.

Well, over the years, the field became lucrative and the "experts" got so biased that they fell into "camps" on a whole array of issues. It got so bad that the term "junk science" was coined to portray the crap that some of these whores were peddling. Ultimately, the Supreme Court intervened in 1995 and established a standard, under the Federal Rules, that an expert must demonstrate that the science supporting his opinion has been vetted in the scientific community and not found wanting. But, to the surprise of only few, that only moved the debate to where the funds to support the "mainstream science" have come from. Perhaps the most notorious example was the tobacco-funded "research" on cancer causation (like the guys cashing these grant checks didn't know where the $ was coming from).

I had the fairly rare opportunity in the late '90's to act as a "Special Master" (a Fed Judge for a single case) in a case in my engineering discipline before law school. One of the experts who testified before me was an elder statesman in his field, one of these guys on a pedestal; another was a former classmate of mine. Sadly, neither had gotten the memo. Words are hardly adequate to express how disappointing it was to see the system going so wrong. I was able to recognize and compensate for it, but the whole concept of expert credibility is supposed to hinge on the professional integrity of the expert, and on definitive science. Both are problematic.

And, as we see in this debate, credibility is still a problem, on both sides. As Matt suggests, we expect that in our politics, we don't expect it in our science. But, since courts are forums for advocacy, the parallel, to me, couldn't be more apparent. In both situations, advocates pick and choose -- and sometimes fund the "research" of -- scientists. Then they hail their opinions as dispositive on a complex issue. And, precisely because the issues are difficult for us mere mortals to sort through ourselves, there's great danger of demagoging (which is the non-Nazi-tainted term for "propaganda") as a substitute for critical thought.

No side is pure, or immune from this problem.

Meanwhile, back at the coal mine, I'm still glad I'm burning a US-sourced, non-petroleum-based fuel to heat my home. It's not only cheaper but, for the moment, it strikes a blow for our national energy independence. But ultimately, for one reason or another, or for a whole group of reasons, fossils aren't going to be the answer, so some long-term planning, both in terms of conservation and alternative energy sources, is pretty clearly in order.
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

PostBy: dll On: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:54 pm

We continually hear about the influence of “big oil” on this debate, here is a brief from an article available at: http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/1 ... -chad.html
that could be called the influnce of “big politics”.

The Nobel Peace Prize has little in common with the science and literature awards. Other Nobel prizes are assigned by committees of experts in the orbit of the Swedish Academy of Science, but the peace Prize winner is determined by a committee reflecting the current strength of the Norwegian political parties. The parliamentary committee of five to whom Democrat Gore owes his prize includes three drawn from the Socialist Left, Labour, and Progressive parties forming Norway's ruling coalition, and one Conservative that happens to be a former Minister of Trade. As Francis Sejersted, past chairman of the committee points out. “Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.”
And all politics is local. None of the other worthy Peace Prize nominees one might list, from Burmese monks to the embattled opponents of tyranny in Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe, can increase the value of Norway's oil and gas reserves. Giving a prize that amplifies the credibility of the world's foremost advocate of carbon taxes most assuredly can.
Investing $750,000 in Al's power to pontificate on behalf of his carbon trading business should pay Norway and OPEC handsomely. If Al's crusade to double coal's cost by taxation results in proportionally higher prices for the lower carbon North Sea oil and gas that are the mainstay of the Norwegian economy, Oslo stands to gain a cool trillion Kroner on its multi- billion barrel reserves. Not bad for a one kilogram disc of gold.


Edit: Added quotes. Please place snippets of articles in quotes.

/Admin
dll
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman MKII
Coal Size/Type: Nut/anthracite

PostBy: Richard S. On: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:46 pm

I can see where this is going so I split the lawyer comments off to here:

http://nepacrossroads.com/viewtopic.php?t=2200

Blame it on the lawyer... :P j/k
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

PostBy: stockingfull On: Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:36 pm

dll wrote:We continually hear about the influence of “big oil” on this debate, here is a brief from an article available at: http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/1 ... -chad.html
that could be called the influnce of “big politics”.

The Nobel Peace Prize has little in common with the science and literature awards. Other Nobel prizes are assigned by committees of experts in the orbit of the Swedish Academy of Science, but the peace Prize winner is determined by a committee reflecting the current strength of the Norwegian political parties. The parliamentary committee of five to whom Democrat Gore owes his prize includes three drawn from the Socialist Left, Labour, and Progressive parties forming Norway's ruling coalition, and one Conservative that happens to be a former Minister of Trade. As Francis Sejersted, past chairman of the committee points out. “Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.”
And all politics is local. None of the other worthy Peace Prize nominees one might list, from Burmese monks to the embattled opponents of tyranny in Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe, can increase the value of Norway's oil and gas reserves. Giving a prize that amplifies the credibility of the world's foremost advocate of carbon taxes most assuredly can.
Investing $750,000 in Al's power to pontificate on behalf of his carbon trading business should pay Norway and OPEC handsomely. If Al's crusade to double coal's cost by taxation results in proportionally higher prices for the lower carbon North Sea oil and gas that are the mainstay of the Norwegian economy, Oslo stands to gain a cool trillion Kroner on its multi- billion barrel reserves. Not bad for a one kilogram disc of gold.


Edit: Added quotes. Please place snippets of articles in quotes.

/Admin


First, you're absolutely right that it's a political prize which may, but needn't necessarily, have some basis in valid science.

But the jaded perspective which so many have on this year's prize, and on the supporting science in general, is in no small measure owing to the increasing perception that scientists -- on all sides -- are willing to sell their talent to the highest bidders.

For example, is it not possible that, among this year's worthy candidates, the one who has advocated for significant reduction of carbon-based fuels might still be the one most worthy of the award, even if there happened to be some economic- or climate-related benefit to the country within whose borders that decision was reached?

Or is that per se corrupt?
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

PostBy: gaw On: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:32 am

Mama said if you have nothing nice to say about someone, say nothing...


I have nothing to say about Al Gore.


I have 30 years on earth left if I'm lucky, 50 if I'm damn lucky! Just let the earth hold out 'till then and I'm set.
gaw
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Keystoker KA-6
Coal Size/Type: Rice from Schuylkill County

PostBy: Matthaus On: Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:54 am

The truth is the truth and does not need anyone to be it's champion. We are a society based largely on appearance, just my opinion not to be confused with what the media or advertisers want you to believe. :lol:

Back to the point of the thread, Al Gore neither deserved nor didn't deserve the award. He simply had the where with all to be noticed, and the political connections to make it happen. The scientists, engineers, and artisans who are really solving the worlds problems and making a better life for all of us on this planet are not visible (and most of them probably like that just fine!).

If each one of us spent a small part of our time helping to get our young people interested in such pursuits, we might stand a chance.


http://www.usfirst.org/default.aspx
This link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.


Twenty years from now this discussion will seem silly. We will have moved on to to other considerations, like moving the available drinking water supply to areas that have none. Or perhaps desalinization and purification of our oceans to be able to provide same. Wouldn't it be nice if our young people were interested in obtaining the tools to solve those and other issues? :)
Matthaus
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Leisure Line WL110 Dual Fuel
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Leisure Line Lil' Heater (rental house)
Coal Size/Type: Rice and Buckwheat Anthracite

PostBy: stockingfull On: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:09 pm

Matthaus is right; we should be looking forward and encouraging our kids to do likewise.

Maybe we won't always see the same things when we do that but the bigger point (and, to me, the point of the controversy in this thread) is that we have to start thinking outside the box to find new solutions. In the near term, I see it as an energy independence issue, where conservation and alternative fuels confer immediate benefits. But we also have to think about the impact of our actions -- of all types -- on our environment in the longer term.

Recently, I've found myself thinking often along the lines gaw has mentioned, since one of my partners told me -- more than 10 years ago -- that I was "on the 11th tee of life." :o And it really is our kids' generational challenge to decipher the science and solve the longer-range problems. So encouraging their pursuit of technical knowledge and creativity may be the best preparation for the next frontier, where good old Yankee ingenuity can make chicken salad out of all this.
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace