Nobel Peace Prize

You mean just because someone wins the Election for President and some group handing out the Nobel Peace Prize gives it to the winner? nahh, that doesn't make the prize seem sullied. It just makes the prize resemble something you win in a lottery. Especially when past winners donated the prize money to charity but Obama used the money to buy a home in Hawaii I thought I heard.

The Nobel prize is not a "lifetime achievement" award, it's given for specific accomplishments.

Get yourselves on the committee that decides it.

Don't forget the man behind the award invented TNT.

I think there should be Piece Prize, "nobel" or not!

I'd be happy with some Reese's Pieces, myself.

for Shark: Obama donated it to charity
http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/…

Actually, when Nobel invented dynamite, he truly thought that dynamite would make war would be too terrible for humanity to contemplate. At the end of WW1 when the awful truth became apparent, he did a 180 and created the Peace Prize.

I think that Stalin should have been a Nobel Peace Prize for the very generous pre-war terms he offered the Finns in WWII. If only those incompetent Finns had the sense to accept his terms the whole Winter War could have been avoided.

Obama was a bad decision. But the peace prize has had many problems. Two big reasons. It tends not to be given for long term contributions like the science and literature prizes. So hard to know whether a lasting solution was found. I have no problem with the Arafat award if the Palistinian issue had been solved in the sense of finding a compromise both sides could live with. Problem is that it wasn't. At least Le Duc Tho turned the prize down because there wasn't peace in Vietnam.

The problem is that most of the folks that make war are sketchy dudes. But ending a war is often in the hands of the same sketchy dudes. So if you make the award before there is a real peace you give the award to sketchy dudes who go back on their word.

Al Gore also a mistake, but for a different reason. If you really don't believe 1) that there is climate change associated with greenhouse gasses; and 2) there is a big anthropogenic component you fundamentally don't understand the science.

I don't have the time or desire to give you the requisite information needed to fully understand, but there is a really simple thing you should contemplate. CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas for more than a century (thanks Arrhenius). Human activities have dumped a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. To believe there is no anthropogenic contribution to observed climate change you would have to believe that something magically compensates for the CO2.

There is a lot more complexity, but the "global warming is a lie" trope fails on first principles. Unfortunately, the American public is scientifically illiterate and those who disbelieve AGW have been fed a bunch of nonsense.

The problem is that Al Gore made AGW a political issue in the states, rather than something that both parties have to face up to.

The linked article said Obama donated his peace prize winnings to charity and his home. I have to wonder how you donate winnings to your private home unless you used the money to spend on your home. I occassionally donate to my home as well. Of course if I won a big prize, I'd use it too.

The problem with talking about greenhouse gases is that there is not much understanding or consensus among ordinary people on what percentage of the contribution of gases in the air produced by people is causing increasing temperatures versus natural increases. I say natural because the other planets have warmed up as well and there is no logical argument you can make to blame man for causing global warming on Mars. We should start entering a period of decreased solar activity very soon I believe so if the planet doesn't start getting colder, we'll know our contribution is much higher than many thought. If the planet gets a lot colder and crops freeze and there are food shortages and famines and global starvation, well then we'll know some people were full of hot air with their theories but at least some will have some satisfaction before they starve to death. With just one super massive volcanic eruption, one small asteroid impact or something that blocks out sunlight for a couple of years, most people will be screwed and there will not be enough food.

Humanity doesn't have the power to destroy the earth. Even the earth doesn't have that power, and God knows it has tried to end itself.

When you win a Juice Prize you get 100,000 Reese's Pieces.

@Sharkhunter -- I'm not following your post Mr. Shark. Whether or not ordinary people have reached a consensus is irrelevant from a scientific standpoint. Very relevant from a policy standpoint since ordinary people vote despite not understandin science. but irrelevant from the standpoint of evaluating the truth or falsity of claims regarding AGW.

The Mars data are irrelevant. Overall climate on Mars is poorly understood, but the data you allude to are measurements of the Martian South Pole. It is shrinking during the summer. The asteroid impact comment is true, but orthogonal to the topic.

But the bigger issue is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's a fact. Without CO2 the Earth's mean temp would be ABOUT -20 C. Well known and relatively well understood for a century. We've moved atmospheric CO2 from under 320 ppm to about 400 ppm. Most of that is anthropogenic. IF global warming deniers were correct, what else is changing to compensate for the increase? There is a lot of complexity associated with predicting future responses to CO2, but that is the core of the issue.

Denying that is like sitting in a room with a dude you can hear farting all day. When you complain 'bout the smell he replies "ain't me dude...next room also smells like farts...air is probably just getting fartier for natural reasons". All scientists that know what they're talking about say "room smells like farts because a dude is farting".

@clubber -- you're right. Humans don't have the power to destroy the earth. There has been greater global warming in the past. However, the earth will be a less livable place if mean temperatures greatly increase. Coastal cities are going to flood. Earth will still be there though. But with fewer species and probably fewer humans.

Not sure what you mean about the earth not having the power to destroy itself. You do realize the earth is inanimate, right?

"Humanity doesn't have the power to destroy the earth. Even the earth doesn't have that power, and God knows it has tried to end itself."


There have been extinction events though - three global ones from what I hear.

Actually five big ones (comparable to or more extreme than the K-Pg event that killed the dinosaurs [all 'cept the birds]). Plus minor ones. We're in number 6 now.

So then it is natural :)

News Flash! Plants magically transform CO2 to O2 although not directly. Isn't it amazing how God made things to to work out like that.
Pretty funny how no one used the term global warming in this discussion. It is now climate change. Greenhouse gasses supposedly hold in heat and thus we were told by Algore that the globe would warm up and as a result we would have more major hurricanes, warming, etc. That however didn't align in with the recent paucity of hurricanes, major or not, or the much colder weather (check with the folks in northern climes of the country as to the cold weather) so it is now called climate change.
All a bunch of hooey.

@Clubber: "Humanity doesn't have the power to destroy the earth."

True, but we do have the capability to render it almost completely uninhabitable for a large number of the species and individuals now living on it. And that's close enough to "destroy" for me.

The people do set policy by their ability to vote and affect those who are in office. Leaders not effectively communicating arguments for and against commonly heard quotes about warming only lead many to believe they are right whether that is true or false.

While I have seen some evidence that there is a relationship between warming and co2, hearing the levels are the highest in almost a million years when the temperature was about 5 to 7 degrees warmer than it is now only makes you wonder, well why is it so much colder now than it was then? There must be other factors at work other than just co2. I hear other planets have experienced global warming. I hear lots of things. What I haven't read is a detailed point and counter point for all the arguments. One side usually argues something is not relevant while the other side says no it isn't.

It makes it even worse when one side has a solution to tax us to death with an end result that doesn't even change anything much on a global scale. So Obama has a plan that will cause our electric bills to double or triple and could have made gas prices jump to $8 a gallon to fight global warming? That might work for millionaires. Everyone else would be starving and planning to vote for whomever gives them a break especially when you hear not much has changed as far as overall co2 levels.

zip,

Ever hear of earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, hurricanes, tsunami's etc?

gmd,

Of course, but then life has adapted to most anything. Ever see what lives in the deepest parts of the oceans? Now if you mean human life, that may be a different story, but comparing human time on this earth to the "lifetime" of the earth is folly!

Seems I recall back in the 70's we were going to freeze to death, now we will burn up. Climate experts can even predict a few days in advance, much less years. As a recent example close to home for me, we were going to have a rough hurricane season. What happened here, ZIP!

I was wondering how fast I'd see evidence of scientific illiteracy...

@jabthehut. -- you know what? There are NO scientists that realized photosynthesis occurred. Now that you've explained it all of their work goes out of the door! I think you should send an email to the Nobel committee. Al Gore got a peace prize for pointing the issue out. Imagine what you'll get for solving it!

@clubber -- yes I've of heard of earthquakes, etc. Do you think the earth causes them intentionally? I'm really trying to figure out WTF you're talking about, not being sarcastic. You said that humanity doesn't have the power to destroy the earth and that the earth doesn't have that power either. Earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. haven't destroyed the earth. Nor can they. But nobody ever said they would. Nobody ever said climate change would destroy the earth. You're arguing against a strawman.

@sharkhunter -- you're right that actual scientists should communicate better to politicians and politicians should be communicating better to the public. That is exactly why Al Gore shouldn't have won the Nobel. He took this issue on and made it a democrat vs republican issue in the states.

Remember when there were commercials with Newt Gingrich sitting next to Nancy Pelosi proclaiming both were worried about global warming? Can you imagine him doing it now? He needs voters that don't believe in global warming. Most of those that believe in global warming won't vote for Gingrich anyway.

You've clearly considered the evidence. But the evidence been poorly communicated to politicians and journalists who don't really understand that well. Then it has gotten to you. I'll break down the essentials --

1. CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas. If all else is held constant, adding CO2 *will* increase temperatures. This is based upon physics that' has been known for more than a century.

2. But all else is not constant. CO2 does go away into a number of sinks. It dissolves into the ocean, it gets converted back to O2 by photosynthesis. Then the problem becomes accounting -- how big are the sources and the sinks. Sources are both natural and anthropogenic. You add them up and compare to the size of the sinks. But there is any easier way -- ask whether CO2 concentrations have increased. They have so sources exceed sinks in recent history.

3. Projecting into the future involves estimating sources and sinks into the future. Natural sources should remain roughly constant, anthropogenic are expected to increase. Sinks are harder. Maybe plants will grow faster in the higher CO2. So you estimate that effect. But sinks are going away because we're cutting down forests. And so forth.

4. Maybe something else will compensate. Perhaps warmer air will increase cloud cover, etc.

But 1 and 2 are rock solid and based on readily measurable things. I've never seen an anti-global warming story that grapples with 1 and 2 in a real way. They throw out stuff about climate on other planets where our understanding is poor. They nitpick details. But they never grapple with the rock solid part.

Oh... And deogol if you want to actually understand the history of the planet you fundamentally have a LOT of reading to do. I'm not going to take you on because you and I would be speaking different languages. You could start by going to a local natural history museum and learning about the mass extinctions. Many have ver nice displays that provide a reasonable introduction.

Alas, there is no lap dancing in the museum :-(

Forget about the global warming or man made weather change. What nobody can argue against is the Pacific Ocean Garbage patch being larger than the size of Texas. Being probably the only active member on this board who spends any considerable amount if time in the Pacific Ocean, I can tell you first hand that the fish are smaller, they have a higher mercury content, and for certain species of marine life, populations are on the decline. None of this is natural. It is man made. You can argue against my points but like I said, I have empirical evidence to support my point.

I think people who live on the West Coast should go to the beach a lot wearing flippers and kick towards the west. This would create a current that would push the Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch till it smacked up against Japan. Japan is a very crowded country and they need the extra land.

What kind of flippers?

Any brand is fine.

Yes Man does have an impact on "Natural" systems. Nature's forces though, move in an EXTREMELY, extremely long term manner. The Planet is 4.54 billion years old. Man's primitive human predecessors have been around for about 2.5 Million yrs. And "modern" Humans - NOT even a quarter of a Million yrs. And the "impactful" Industrial Age is perhaps 170 to 250 YEARS old.

Venus is an example of the Greenhouse effect run rampant on a Planetary scale.

The Ozone layer protects us from most of the Sun's UV radiation. Destroy or weaken the ozone layer too much, & the Earth's surface will fry under the increased UV radiation. [Example - Mars] That would be highly incompatible with continued complex life.
The Earth will be still be around for about another 6 to 7 Billion yrs until the Sun becomes a Red Giant and balloons out and engulfs the Earth. But the natural increase in Sun's luminosity will cause the Earth's temperatures to rise over the next few hundred million years. This Natural occurrence will end complex life on the Earth. THERE is NOTHING we humans can do about it. And stupid political views and bickering about it is just "Hot Air" and a waste of time.

Well said, Alucard.

@Ibby-I didn't mean brand(I use Churchill's). I meant what kind. Never mind.

So Alucrap,you will be right at home when it is nothing but you and cockroaches.

I read some good news. We would be facing famine and starvation very soon but thanks to man made increases in co2, that shouldn't happen. Apparently we are entering an extreme solar minimum that would have been worse than the last mini ice age lasting several decades. Thanks to all the hot air and co2, scientists think we don't even need to worry about that. I'll keep repeating that as global temperatures keep dropping in case they are wrong. If all the underwater volcanic activity dies down too, maybe the oceans would cool off a little.

All underwater volcanic activity will not decrease as long as Plate Tectonic activity continues. Plate Tectonic activity has been going on for Billions of yrs and will continue.

Zip,

I'm not arguing with anyone. Just trying to get you to see reality and not fall for the lefts evirolegion.

@Clubber -- fair enough, I was just trying to figure out what you were even saying. I will say that the fact that you label AGW a religion illustrates my point. The problem with Al Gore isn't the fact that he is wrong about AGW (he isn't, and there is essentially unanimous support for AGW among scientists that have relevant degrees; i.e., those that know what they are talking about).

To problem with Al Gore is that he made AGW a left-right issue. Thought experiment for the anti-AGW crowd. Let's say that tomorrow a group of conservatives came out and issued the following statement "It is clear, based upon the fact that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree, that climate change associated with anthropogenic CO2 emissions is occurring. However, our projections of the economic damage from AGW are much lower than the projected damage associated with any policies designed to ameliorate AGW. Therefore, we recommend ZERO policy changes." Would that change your opinion regarding the reality of AGW? If not, I'm curious why not?

The point is that I believe you're reacting to Al Gore's policy suggestions (or your perception of what they would be) rather than AGW itself. Why should you react to that? THAT is ultimately an academic issue, as abstract as the question of exactly when solar evolution will destroy complex life (several hundred million years, as Alucard stated, though estimates vary somewhat).

I say Al Gore did the world a disservice by making AGW a Republican vs Democrat issue. Better to communicate the science first, then argue about what to do about it, if anything. Now, thanks to Gore, we have a bunch of people who fundamentally don't understand the science disbelieving AGW because it is "liberal lies". We also get people who believe AGW because it aligns with their political views, not because they understand science. Neither group actually knows what the fuck they're talking about, so the debate is BS.

@shark -- if you're being serious about the grand solar minimum you should think about what you're actually saying. Fundamentally, you're saying that AGW will compensate for a grand solar minimum -- a corollary of that is that CO2 *will* have an impact. We just lucked out and dumped greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at a time when the earth would have had another little ice age.

Two problems -- the grand solar minimum is not guaranteed and -- even if it occurs -- is not guaranteed to compensate for the increased greenhouse gasses.

The problem I see is that people fundamentally don't understand enough science to even ask the right questions. Modern science is complex enough that at a certain point you have to trust people with actual credentials in relevant fields. For example, I ultimately trust that the CERN supercollider has detected the Higgs boson. I actually know enough math to follow a fair amount of quantum field theory. But at a certain point my understanding breaks down (my degrees aren't in high energy physics) and I have to accept experts.

Now I can hear you saying "so you admit you don't KNOW that AGW". True, but riddle me this...you are given a choice between flying in a plane designed by actual aerospace engineers and one designed by a random dude you know only one thing about -- he has zero credentials in anything related to aircraft design. Which plane do you hop on?

The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by Norwegian politicians and, as a result, is sadly influenced by political correctness. Norwegian politicians suffer from that disease just as badly as do our North American politicians.

Personally, I was most disgusted when that horrid old Albanian crone was given the Nobel Peace Prize.

Anybody here ever hear of the Ignobel Awards?