Let's see, Yasser Arafat, an admitted terrorist got one. Jimmy Carter at least got one for hammering some nails. Now Al Gore. Alfred Noble must be spinning in his grave. The elitists are now rewarding the elitists with no care as to what old Alfred's will stated.
"those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."
Excuse me, but what benefit did Al confer on mankind? If it were up to him, we'd reduce the number of people on this planet by half. Here's what he says in the intro to his amazingly scientifically inaccurate book, Earth In The Balance.
"In one sense, civilization itself has been on a journey from its foundations in the world of nature to an ever more contrived, controlled and manufactured world of our own imitative and sometimes arrogant design. And in my view, the price has been high."
So perhaps we shouldn't have contrived, controlled, and manufactured things like antibiotics or cancer medicines. Medicines that saved his wife's life.
This guy has none of the qualities that should be rewarded with a Nobel Prize. Thank goodness that the science prizes can't be jiggered like the Peace Prize has.
Showing posts with label Al Gore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Gore. Show all posts
Friday, October 12, 2007
Gore's Noble Challenge
By Patrick J. Michaels
Published 10/12/2007 12:08:03 AM
Al Gore has finally won his Nobel Prize, reminiscent of the proverbial little nut that stood his ground, evolving into a giant Oak. Now we can only hope that he runs for President, an office that, given recent history, surely deserves him.
Where else -- except perhaps via the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, which Gore negotiated -- can someone accomplish so little while spending so much? But, to get there, or at least to the Demo nomination, Gore's going to have to do something he has assiduously avoided: debate
Gore's standard rule on live TV has been there will be no live challenge. The last time he ran for President (2000), he succeeded de facto, with George "Carbon Bonoixde" Bush as the token global warming flyweight. This time, debates happen.
That's because Gore represents a party gone global warming ga-ga, with some of the world's goofiest environmental legislation in history awaiting a Bush veto and a Gore signature.
Consider what Bernie Sanders ("I"-VT) has in the docket: A legislative magic wand that will require us to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide by 90% in a mere 42 years. Since 1990, we're up a little under 20%. Sanders' legislation takes us back to the 1930s, a technological stone age. True, there's other, more "moderate" legislation. John Kerry's (D-MA) proposal would cut it back 80%. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is at 50%.
Each and every one has a good chance of Senate passage, and an even better chance of a veto. So, now that you have your Nobel, Come out and fight like a man, Al, and don't even worry about picking on someone your own size.
The fact is that Al has ducked, feinted, dived away from, or fluffed each and every opportunity for a reasoned debate with any global warming scientist not of his choice, a choice he no longer enjoys. Heartland Institute, a Chicago think tank, spent over a million dollars filing ads in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and their ilk, begging Al to debate. No dice. In a less public venue, my own Cato Institute sent kind and courteous letters asking him to share our pretty auditorium on Washington's Massachusetts Avenue, for a civil discussion with our scholars. Again, no dice.
Here's the rub: if any opposition were so easy to vanquish, Gore would relish the opportunity. Obviously there's a substantive and cogent argument he can't kill.
In essence, it is that Gore has massively departed from the scientific mainstream on global warming, even as that community may be itself biased by the funding afforded by emphasizing the negative.
For example, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (of which I am a member, while Gore is not) predicts a mean sea-level rise of about 13 inches by 2100. Gore's book and movie contain an undated montage showing Florida sliding beneath the waves, something that could only happen with 13 feet or more.
How on earth does one accomplish such a disconnect from scientific reality?
Gore only has one scientist, James Hansen of NASA, whispering the sweet nothings into his ear that sea-level could rise this much or more in the next 92 years, as Greenland's ice sheets are destabilized by climate change.
No other scientist is willing to climb out on this limb, because it is simply not supported by the observed climatic history of Greenland since the end of the last ice age. For much of six millennia, ending 3,000 years ago, it had to be warmer, and yet the ice stuck like glue. Hansen's amazing response, which you can read on his blog, documented at www.realclimate.org (not exactly a peer-reviewed scientific journal!) is that other scientists don't agree with him because they suffer from what he calls "scientific reticence." In other words, all his colleagues are chicken-bleeps because they don't agree with him.
How about the other pole? Every computer model mentioned by the United Nations shows Antarctica gaining ice this century because a slight warming will result in more precipitation which must fall as snow. Would Gore like that out in public? Or how about the fact that Antarctica just set its record maximum for sea-ice extent, as measured by satellite.
The world can only hope that Gore's Nobel propels him into another run for the Presidency. He received it for his climate lunacy. Now he can defend it and the Nobel Prize by merely debating those who must be so easy to defeat.
Published 10/12/2007 12:08:03 AM
Al Gore has finally won his Nobel Prize, reminiscent of the proverbial little nut that stood his ground, evolving into a giant Oak. Now we can only hope that he runs for President, an office that, given recent history, surely deserves him.
Where else -- except perhaps via the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, which Gore negotiated -- can someone accomplish so little while spending so much? But, to get there, or at least to the Demo nomination, Gore's going to have to do something he has assiduously avoided: debate
Gore's standard rule on live TV has been there will be no live challenge. The last time he ran for President (2000), he succeeded de facto, with George "Carbon Bonoixde" Bush as the token global warming flyweight. This time, debates happen.
That's because Gore represents a party gone global warming ga-ga, with some of the world's goofiest environmental legislation in history awaiting a Bush veto and a Gore signature.
Consider what Bernie Sanders ("I"-VT) has in the docket: A legislative magic wand that will require us to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide by 90% in a mere 42 years. Since 1990, we're up a little under 20%. Sanders' legislation takes us back to the 1930s, a technological stone age. True, there's other, more "moderate" legislation. John Kerry's (D-MA) proposal would cut it back 80%. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is at 50%.
Each and every one has a good chance of Senate passage, and an even better chance of a veto. So, now that you have your Nobel, Come out and fight like a man, Al, and don't even worry about picking on someone your own size.
The fact is that Al has ducked, feinted, dived away from, or fluffed each and every opportunity for a reasoned debate with any global warming scientist not of his choice, a choice he no longer enjoys. Heartland Institute, a Chicago think tank, spent over a million dollars filing ads in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and their ilk, begging Al to debate. No dice. In a less public venue, my own Cato Institute sent kind and courteous letters asking him to share our pretty auditorium on Washington's Massachusetts Avenue, for a civil discussion with our scholars. Again, no dice.
Here's the rub: if any opposition were so easy to vanquish, Gore would relish the opportunity. Obviously there's a substantive and cogent argument he can't kill.
In essence, it is that Gore has massively departed from the scientific mainstream on global warming, even as that community may be itself biased by the funding afforded by emphasizing the negative.
For example, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (of which I am a member, while Gore is not) predicts a mean sea-level rise of about 13 inches by 2100. Gore's book and movie contain an undated montage showing Florida sliding beneath the waves, something that could only happen with 13 feet or more.
How on earth does one accomplish such a disconnect from scientific reality?
Gore only has one scientist, James Hansen of NASA, whispering the sweet nothings into his ear that sea-level could rise this much or more in the next 92 years, as Greenland's ice sheets are destabilized by climate change.
No other scientist is willing to climb out on this limb, because it is simply not supported by the observed climatic history of Greenland since the end of the last ice age. For much of six millennia, ending 3,000 years ago, it had to be warmer, and yet the ice stuck like glue. Hansen's amazing response, which you can read on his blog, documented at www.realclimate.org (not exactly a peer-reviewed scientific journal!) is that other scientists don't agree with him because they suffer from what he calls "scientific reticence." In other words, all his colleagues are chicken-bleeps because they don't agree with him.
How about the other pole? Every computer model mentioned by the United Nations shows Antarctica gaining ice this century because a slight warming will result in more precipitation which must fall as snow. Would Gore like that out in public? Or how about the fact that Antarctica just set its record maximum for sea-ice extent, as measured by satellite.
The world can only hope that Gore's Nobel propels him into another run for the Presidency. He received it for his climate lunacy. Now he can defend it and the Nobel Prize by merely debating those who must be so easy to defeat.
Al Gore - Never said the word "invented"
Internet of Lies
Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.
Status: False.
Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):
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.
Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings — the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea.
(To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean exactly the same thing, we have to ask why, then, the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet, even though he never used that word, and transcripts of what he actually said were readily available.)
If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.
Whether Gore's statement that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" is justified is a subject of debate. Any statement about the "creation" or "beginning" of the Internet is difficult to evaluate, because the Internet is not a homogenous entity (it's a collection of computers, networks, protocols, standards, and application programs), nor did it all spring into being at once (the components that comprise the Internet were developed in various places at different times and are continuously being modified, improved, and expanded). Despite a spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977.
It is true, though, that Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (although he did not, as is often claimed by others, coin the phrase himself) when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic).
In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions.
Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.
Status: False.
Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):
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.
Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings — the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea.
(To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean exactly the same thing, we have to ask why, then, the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet, even though he never used that word, and transcripts of what he actually said were readily available.)
If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.
Whether Gore's statement that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" is justified is a subject of debate. Any statement about the "creation" or "beginning" of the Internet is difficult to evaluate, because the Internet is not a homogenous entity (it's a collection of computers, networks, protocols, standards, and application programs), nor did it all spring into being at once (the components that comprise the Internet were developed in various places at different times and are continuously being modified, improved, and expanded). Despite a spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977.
It is true, though, that Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (although he did not, as is often claimed by others, coin the phrase himself) when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic).
In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Gore Pushed to Run If He Wins Nobel
Newsweek reports this week that Democratic activists across the country are pressing Al Gore to enter the presidential race — and believe that if Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize this month — it may just trigger his entry. NewsMax’s e-letter “Insider Report” first disclosed back on June 10 that the former vice president was considering entering the race if he won the Nobel prize. Winners are announced this October 12 in Oslo, Norway.
NewsMax reported, “Party insiders believe that a Gore campaign launched as late as October will still have enough time to raise money and challenge front-runners Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.”
Gore has been nominated for the prize for his efforts to draw attention to the dangers of global warming. Speculation about a Gore run has been increasing as the date draws near.
Gore supporters believe a Nobel win “would burnish his reputation and remind Democrats that he’s been a leader fighting what voters consider the world’s premier environmental battle,” Newsweek reports. “Some Gore backers think he’s already decided to run, but speculate that he doesn’t want politics to interfere with his Nobel chances.”
The national DraftGore.com organization has gathered around 127,000 signatures to put Gore on primary ballots, and is planning to run an ad in The New York Times urging him to run.
The California 4 Gore group has volunteers circulating petitions in all 53 congressional districts. And a poll in Michigan by Detroit News/WXYZ-TV had Gore winning 36 percent of the vote, beating out Clinton with 32 percent.
So far Gore has given no clear indication that he’s leaning toward a run, although he has not ruled that out when given the opportunity.
But Roy Gayhart, an organizer of the California group, told Newsweek, “We feel that if [Gore] wins the Nobel Prize . . . then he can’t not run for president.”
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Friday, October 5, 2007
Al Gore Finally Debates Scientists Over Global Warming
Climate change skeptics around the world are painfully aware that the Global Warmingist-in-Chief, soon-to-be-Nobel Laureate Al Gore, despite his supposedly vast knowledge on the subject, has refused every invitation to debate his theories concerning man's role in making things hot for the planet. Fearing the globe's foremost warm-monger will never step up to the challenge - why should he...the debate's over! - top scientists from everywhere you can imagine have decided to debate the former vice president the only way seemingly possible: on YouTube.
As marvelously announced at PR Newswire Thursday (debate video available here).
Since former Vice President and global warming activist Al Gore has so far refused to debate global warming skeptics, the debate has been brought to him. The public can now watch Al Gore make his case head-to-head against expert climatologists in the first episode of the new environmental education video series, "We Debate, You Decide," launched by DemandDebate.com.
How delicious. The announcement continued:
"Al Gore has refused multiple invitations to debate in-person about global warming," said Steve Milloy, executive director of DemandDebate.com. "So we've decided to let video of his previous remarks do the talking for him," Milloy explained.
In the first installment of DemandDebate's "We Debate, You Decide" series, Al Gore 'debates' expert climatologists on the central issue of whether carbon dioxide drives global warming.
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.
Last March, the prestigious New York debating society, Intelligence Squared, sponsored a debate on global warming, which may be viewed at http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12. A pre-debate poll indicated that, by 2-to-1 (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided), the audience believed that manmade global warming was a crisis. But in the post-debate poll, the audience reversed its pre-debate views -- the ranks of the skeptics swelled to 46 percent, the believers plummeted to 42 percent and the undecided declined slightly to 12 percent.
Of course, unless you read NewsBusters, you likely didn’t hear about this debate in New York. After all, the results didn’t mesh with the media’s agenda.
That said, DemandDebate.com is to be commended for its efforts, and we sincerely hope that these videos will help the public better understand the facts that a global warming obsessed media are doing their darnedest to withhold from the citizenry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
