Similarly, there are "experts" who say they can prove Noah's Arc and the world flood happened too. Does the existence of experts believing something make it a fact in your mind?

And yet the measurable facts don't seem to be working out too well. Tegua, the tiny island nation in the Pacific that global warming zealots were claiming would be gone by now has not seen its sea level change at all.

Moreover, despite CO2 levels continuing to grow, our mean temperature has actually gone down since the 1998 high.

 

(Yawn!)

I agree. Similarly, thank God that trendy environmental zealotry isn't enforcible beyond their religious boundaries.  I am thankful that we can have a diversity of opinions too.

I confess to finding the religious faith in magic super beings of some people as amusing as watching the faith smug quasi-intellectuals in action.

Similarly, I can find great amusement in watching the intellectual tap dancing around the ridiculous comparison of Al Gore to Ann Coulter as representatives of ideologies.

How about a comparison of William F. Buckley vs. Michael Moore while we're at it. Or Al Franken vs. Edmund Burke.

Gore's nobel peace prize will go nicely in line with another recent winner: Yasir Arafat. One wins it for having his "life's work" about the danger of CO2 emissions to causing global castastrophe while being a prolific user of CO2 in his massive, energy inefficient mansion and the other wins for his efforts to "bring peace to the middle east" while being a murderous terrorist bent on exterminating Jews.

And who said Alfred Nobel didn't have a sense of humor?

does coulter use feminine pronouns when discussing or referring to fellow transvestites?   

Draginol: Gore has faith in a religion in which CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming. Coulter has faith in a religion that believes that a magical super being runs the universe.

The difference here is that Gore is being rewarded for his particular faith while you are dismissing Coulter because her faith differs from yours.

Science must be the "religion" to which you refer. Gore has worked on behalf of our environment; Coulter has blabbed and insulted her way to stardom. Such a choice.

Draginol: And yet the measurable facts don't seem to be working out too well. Tegua, the tiny island nation in the Pacific that global warming zealots were claiming would be gone by now has not seen its sea level change at all.

Daiho: Oh, really? Not according to the nation itself:

"The effects of climate change and rising sea levels can be seen on many islands in Vanuatu. In 1993, Australian scientists set up the Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project. They recorded the sea level at 12 points in the South Pacific and detected a rise of, on average, 6mm per year, or 7.8cm (3.1 inches) in total. Vanuatu's Meteorological Department monitors the number of storms that have hit the nation since 1941. In the Forties, says the department's head, Jotham Napat, the number in their records was five, but in the past few years, the average has been 15. " cited from The Independent.

Draginol: For instance, those who aren't convinced that human produced CO2 is producing global warming are told they don't "care" about the environment. Sure, we might work tirelessly towards conservation of wetlands, clean water and air and protecting habitat and animals but none of that matters to the envirofascists who define being an environmentalist as believing in their trendy, poorly evidenced CO2 global warming theory.

What are you talking about here? What is an "envirofascist"? Is this some sort of trendy nonsense slang you might have picked up from that wacko Rush? If you are protecting the things you refer to, I believe Rush would refer to you by some such emotion-laden language. Humans have produced harmful effects from Hydroflourocarbons. The data is there for anyone to see. Since these were removed, we have seen a gradual reduction in their presence in the atmosphere and a corresponding reduction in ozone depletion.

You refer to theory as if its something false. That's odd. A theory is nothing more than two or more concepts that help explain or predict something. On a simple level it could simply be a hypothesis. A theory is just a working model. Science uses theory, but is not driven by it. Science tests theory, Unlike some religionists who, as you say, make outlandish claims to have discovered Noah's legendary ark. And you put the two on the same level? Goodness.


Draginol: Does the existence of experts believing something make it a fact in your mind?

I do hope you are being tongue in cheek with this obtuse remark. Data are the facts with a theory organizing them which can be tested.

Draginol: I confess to finding the religious faith in magic super beings of some people as amusing as watching the faith smug quasi-intellectuals in action.

No quasi-intellectual here. I am a certified intellectual who has a Ph.D. from Case Western Reserve University. If you find that amusing I smile with you.

Draginol: Similarly, I can find great amusement in watching the intellectual tap dancing around the ridiculous comparison of Al Gore to Ann Coulter as representatives of ideologies.

Whoops. I guess I am an intellectual. I did not suggest Al Gore represented an ideology. Only that he was a hard working man who won a great prize for his work. Some consider him a leftie "envirofascist" (wasn't that your term?) And Ann Coulter is representative of the extreme right wing loudmouth brigade who slanders all who are not in their lily white footsteps. Fair? No. Just two pieces I saw in the newspaper today.

Draginol: How about a comparison of William F. Buckley vs. Michael Moore while we're at it. Or Al Franken vs. Edmund Burke.

Buckley's article today wasn't all that inspiring (it was about Lieberman, I think) and Moore wasn't in the news, nor was Franken and Burke's been dead quite awhile. But I do get your point. (You know, in another day. Buckley was an entertainer of sorts. Did you see him with Gore Vidal on television? I always liked his handling of a pencil and the trademark crook in his neck. I suppose Moore's trademark is sloppiness.

As far as Arafat goes, I am with you on that one.

Good talking with you.

The problem with discussion about the global warming issue is that those who seriously care about the subject on either side are not flexible enough to change their viewpoint by persuasive discourse. And the issue is a THEORY...not provable by scientific method. The mean temperature of the earth has risen a little more than half a degree in the last 100 years or so...according to the believers. For that half a degree we have received the benefits of the industrial revolution.

The demand for citizens of this nation to curb their lifestyle so the earth will be cleaner is silly. Developing nations around the world are the major polluters...funny how Kyoto doesn't apply to them.

And as for Mr. Gore...he is definately in the right company...considering who else has been given the award in the last few years. He gonna fly over to Europe in that private jet to receive the award?

Smart ass...fat ass...I am sensing a fixation here.

Heyt there BFD! You got me. (More: Dai Ho means Great Dharma aka, big reality...perhaps we have a lot more in common than at first thought!)

Seriously, a theory's purpose is to guide research questions and be proved by scientific method. It is inherent in the method.

Be well Brother.

True, but they haven't been proven to cause global warming is the point.

So Daiho writes:


lula posts:

So Daiho posts:

So Daiho,

Re: Ann's supposed quote suggesting that Jews are slimy....I watched a rerun of CNBC's Big Idea and Donny Deutsch last evening and Ann Coulter never once suggested that Jews are slimy...or anything close. It would be good to either come up with the specific quote or stop this hurtful gossip.

Re: Your saying that "It is hardly charitable to suggest a whole people abandon a faith given to them (in their perspective) by God.."

God gave the Jews the Old Covenant Hebrew religion and the OLd Testament is God's testimony of how the Jews themselves, except for a few, abandoned it time and time again. Reformed Judaism, modern Judiasm, the synagague, the Talmud, the modern rites and ceremonies are not the faith given by God that you refer to. The Jewish religion as practiced today has virtually nothing in common with the Hebrew religion originally given by God, and the religion practiced at the time of Christ.

It is this Hebrew religion that Ann Coulter was referring to when she said that Christianity perfects. It's the truth. The old Hebrew religion (biblical Judaism) came to an end with Our Lord's death on the Cross by which He established a New Covenant that made obsolete the Old. Christianity perfects biblical Judaism. Moses knew this and just before he died, his command was that they listen to the "PROPHET" God would send, whom "thou shalt hear." Deut. 88: 4-5.

Ann Coulter pointed out that Donny Deutsch is not a practicing Jew..and she invited him to go to Church with her...very charitable thing to do...


After all was said and done, Deutsch proved himself a hypocrite...an intolerant bigot for smearing her as anti-Semitic, uncharitable for painting all sincerely believing Christians as ignorant and stupid, too, for keeping airing it.

I believe an asteroid is going to destroy all life the planet in the future. We need to construct advanced nuclear warheads and missiles to defeat this threat. I have never personally used a nuclear device, so I’m not a hypocrite. Scientists say it has happened in the past and the impact on Jupiter a few years back demonstrate the feasibility of such an event occurring here. Please e-mail this to everyone you know and pass it on. I don’t have a private jet to fly around and promote my concern so I must rely on the internet and the kindness of strangers to get my theory out. Next year’s Nobel committee can reach me here on JoeUser to inform me of my nomination and subsequent award. Thanks to all in advance and please look for my upcoming book, “An Inconvenient Killer Asteroid”.

…and in an unrelated issue, whatever happened to all those scientist that were predicting the next ice age when I was a kid? They must have melted behind the scenes.

Oh….and special thanks to Mr. Gore for inventing the internet, thereby allowing me to get this "asteroid problem" information out to the public. Couldn’t have done it without cha.

Gore has worked on behalf of our environment

Im curious So Daiho, considering that you only metion them once, how come you do not name those who actually did the studies, the research and the real hard work? How come is it that Al Gore is getting all the glory for work that was done by other people and all he did was go around talking about it?

And if avoiding a catastrophy is a means to earn a Nobel Peace Prize, should every weather reporter during huricane season deserve one as well when ever they are watching a huricane that is about to hit land and manage to save thousands of lives by telling people to move to shelters or away from the storm? Interesting how a guy who contributes to the same problem that he goes around screaming at people they should do gets a prize.

But you know, maybe I should just take Gid's route on this article.

(yawn)

Darn, I did it again, I posted under my wifes name.

So what if it doesn't cause global warming? You yourself agreed that they cause "harmful effects". shouldn't we try to curb those harmful effects?

Science must be the "religion" to which you refer. Gore has worked on behalf of our environment; Coulter has blabbed and insulted her way to stardom. Such a choice.

CO2 causing global warming is a hypothesis. It isn't science any more than the hypothesis that fluctuations in the Earth's temperature are related to solar activity. A hypothesis is, at best, the second step in the scientific method (i.e. step 1, make an observation, step 2 form a hypothesis, step 3 theorize a reproducable scenario - the theory part, step 4, test the scenario, step 5 verify the scenario).

Draginol: And yet the measurable facts don't seem to be working out too well. Tegua, the tiny island nation in the Pacific that global warming zealots were claiming would be gone by now has not seen its sea level change at all. Daiho: Oh, really? Not according to the nation itself: "The effects of climate change and rising sea levels can be seen on many islands in Vanuatu. In 1993, Australian scientists set up the Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project. They recorded the sea level at 12 points in the South Pacific and detected a rise of, on average, 6mm per year, or 7.8cm (3.1 inches) in total. Vanuatu's Meteorological Department monitors the number of storms that have hit the nation since 1941. In the Forties, says the department's head, Jotham Napat, the number in their records was five, but in the past few years, the average has been 15. " cited from The Independent.

And SINCE this claim, hordes of climatogolists have descended on the tiny nation to verify these claims. And the conclusion is that there's no evidence to show that sea level has changed due to global warming.  

Moreover, while the plight of an island in the Pacific is indeed newsworthy in the sense of the effects of rising waters, it does zilch to prove that human produced CO2 is the cause. And Gore isn't trying to prove global warming. He is trying to assert that human made CO2 is causing global warming.

Draginol: For instance, those who aren't convinced that human produced CO2 is producing global warming are told they don't "care" about the environment. Sure, we might work tirelessly towards conservation of wetlands, clean water and air and protecting habitat and animals but none of that matters to the envirofascists who define being an environmentalist as believing in their trendy, poorly evidenced CO2 global warming theory. What are you talking about here? What is an "envirofascist"? Is this some sort of trendy nonsense slang you might have picked up from that wacko Rush? If you are protecting the things you refer to, I believe Rush would refer to you by some such emotion-laden language. Humans have produced harmful effects from Hydroflourocarbons. The data is there for anyone to see. Since these were removed, we have seen a gradual reduction in their presence in the atmosphere and a corresponding reduction in ozone depletion

I don't even know where to start here.  First, I note you call Rush Limbaugh a "wacko". And for what? Because he has a different point of view than you? I'm not a big Rush Limbaugh fan, as some people here remember, he attacked me on his show for a full week last year (I was the inspiration for the term "cut and run conservative" he coined to insult people like me). It did help traffic since he linked to me.

Secondly, we aren't talking about hydroflourocarbons. We are talking about CO2. Hydroflourocarbons were proven to cause the depletion of the ozone layer. That is science. 

Thirdly, what I refer to as envirofascists were the people i outlined in the part you snipped -- the people who would insult me and say I don't care about the environment because I don't happen to be jumping on the human CO2 hypothesis on global warming.

You refer to theory as if its something false. That's odd. A theory is nothing more than two or more concepts that help explain or predict something. On a simple level it could simply be a hypothesis. A theory is just a working model. Science uses theory, but is not driven by it. Science tests theory, Unlike some religionists who, as you say, make outlandish claims to have discovered Noah's legendary ark. And you put the two on the same level? Goodness.

This is so completely backward from reality I don't know where to start. Let's take this apart:

1. Al Gore, not me, won that Nobel Peace prize.
2. You agree that human produced CO2 causing global warming is a theory (I'd say it's a hypothesis at best but let's not split hairs)
3. You claim that Al Gore deserves the Nobel Peace prize because of his work on what you admit to is merely an unproven theory.

In other words, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace prize largely for making a movie that promotes his particular environmental hypothesis. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to make a reasonable scientific case that human produced CO2 has caused the warming trend we've seen since 1976 which peeked in 1998 and has since decreased slightly.  It's simply a hypothesis.

Therefore, I would argue that Gore won not for doing anything constructive but because he happened to have a popular opinion.  He did nothing in the cause of world peace. He has done nothing that, by your own admission above, can be shown to make any difference whatsoever to global climate. 

The difference in who is more "valuable" between Gore and Coulter is that you happen to like Gore's ideology more than Coulter.  While Coulter may be obnoxious and insulting, Gore not only is implying that those who produce excess CO2 will be responsible for the deaths of billions, he is personally doing virtually nothing in his own life to help (i.e. his blatant hypocricy with his massive personal carbon foot print).

Draginol: I confess to finding the religious faith in magic super beings of some people as amusing as watching the faith smug quasi-intellectuals in action. No quasi-intellectual here. I am a certified intellectual who has a Ph.D. from Case Western Reserve University. If you find that amusing I smile with you.

Let me make sure I didn't misunderstand you: They have "certified intellectuals" in your country?  What precisely is your Ph.D. in?  Is it in physics? Is it in chemistry? Is it in a field that relies heavily on the scientific method? I am not trying to be patronizing but rather trying to understand if your background is more in philosophy or in hard science.  My background is in engineering. We tend to be very precise in what we call a fact, a theory, or a hypothesis.

As an intellectual, do you not see the gross flaws in the argument you put forward?

Your article is about contrasting Gore and Coulter making them avatars of liberal and conservative ideology even though such a comparison is absurd.  You then make comments as if human produced CO2 as the cause of global warming is a fact and that on that basis, Al Gore creating more awareness on this subject deserves the award.

In fact you state: "Mr. Gore has done an incredible service to this planet and its people by bringing into clear focus a world environmental crisis that only kooks disagree is happening." But few disagree that the world mean temperature has risen slightly since 1976.  But that isn't what Gore is bringing into "clear focus" (to use your own words). He is claiming that human produced CO2 (CO2 being a green house gas) is the engine driving this slight change in temperature which in turn will result in all kinds of clamity. 

But you later admit that Gore's position is a theory, perhaps (you admit) merely a hypothesis. 

So we have no real reason to think that Gore has done anything constructive at all. He simply happens to advocate a currently trendy, popular hypothesis. And on that basis, he won a Nobel peace prize.

I believe an asteroid is going to destroy all life the planet in the future. We need to construct advanced nuclear warheads and missiles to defeat this threat. I have never personally used a nuclear device, so I’m not a hypocrite. Scientists say it has happened in the past and the impact on Jupiter a few years back demonstrate the feasibility of such an event occurring here. Please e-mail this to everyone you know and pass it on. I don’t have a private jet to fly around and promote my concern so I must rely on the internet and the kindness of strangers to get my theory out. Next year’s Nobel committee can reach me here on JoeUser to inform me of my nomination and subsequent award. Thanks to all in advance and please look for my upcoming book, “An Inconvenient Killer Asteroid”.

You have my vote.

I would say we (the human race) are far more likely to perish due to an untimely asteroid impact than due to human produced CO2.

Lula: She refered to Jews as "oily" in her October 20, 2004 column. I stand corrected. Is there a difference between oily and slimy? Perhaps.

As to the rest of your comments. Mr. Deutsch is a practicing Jew. He said so in that interview. A Christian, in the main, would have very little clue what a "practicing" Jew did anyway. You'd probably think it meant going to synagogue, thinking synagogue was like church.

I will not argue with you about who religion has just the right take on God's word. I believe we all have a doorway to His house, even non-believers.

Be well.

Thanks Brad.... now if I can just convince those Swedish Nobel board members, that prize will be mine next year!

A person with intelligence that does not exercise reasoning skills is no better than your common idiot. The only problem is, some people take them seriously because they're "smart."

~Zoo

Good Morning Draginol,

Lets continue. My PhD. is in Applied Social Science, in specific mental health research and practice. I have done doctoral level research for a very long time and taught both advanced research and statistics at university.

The OED defines a theory very closely to the way I do, but moreover, in the sciences, hard or soft, theory building is critical to the individual discipline. We want a set of hypotheses which are testable and in the testing will point us in a direction of understanding or predicting something we observe.

Cause, in the most technical sense, is very difficult to establish as it is nearly impossible to account for all of the possible variables, especially in the human sciences and environmental sciences. Even the most sophisticated multiple regression analysis will have considerable unexplained variance. Does this mean we do not make connections? Or that we should stop our study? No. We form lower level statistical statements such as associations and correlations and have a probability factor involved. And we keep plodding on.

So, your need to state this does not cause that or my need to say it does, is really impossible to say with any degree of certainty. However, we can say there seems to be an association of as regards human/industrial impact on environment.

The continued need to assert one plank or another becomes a near ideological reference and in this we can look for basic assumptions of the individuals involved, their hopes and dreams, and so on.

My need is to work for a safer environment, a cleaner environment, and a more nurturing environment. I cannot speak for you.

As to Al Gore not deserving Noble Peace Prize because his documentary and all of the work, travel, public education, that went into the creation of that film was based on a "unproven" theory, my answer, poppycock.

Much of the work that wins the Nobel is theoretical. For goodness sake, all of Einstein's work (and many, many other Nobel laureates) was theoretical so I suppose, then, according to you, people working in the theoretical domains (the cutting edge of their particular discipline) should not ever win such a prize.

Moreover, the Peace prize has always been controversial. Peace itself is controversial. I have personal issues with Arafat getting the award, for example, but in the end, and overall, it is important for us to come together and support efforts for peace. Even in the face of controversy...especially in the face of controversy.

Strident voices on either side, such as the radio right or left, war supporters, war protesters, and others who defame those working for a harmonious existence, serve only to sew the seeds of fear and hostility.

I hope you are well.

Dear Suhay,

I mentioned the IPCC a few times and referenced a number of studies. Gore's film gives credit where credit is due. Besides, he has really done considerably more than just "go around talking about it." His environment work is decades long. Don't forget he write Earth in the Balance before he was Vice President.

Be well.

But this is not the same as applied science. It is more akin to anthropology. Your degree seems to be more in humanities.

This doesn't imply that you're not highly intelligent. But rather that you are relying heavily on analysis of others for the basis of your scientific opinions rather than being familiar with science into itself in my opinion.

I think we all prefer this.  However, we have no evidence that our present output of CO2 does anything to make our envioronment less safe, less clean, and less nurturing.

If anything, I would argue that the internal combustion engine has resulted in a massive decrease in pollution over what would have occurred had our population reached 6 billion and we still relied on horses and other such animals which are far less efficient than automobiles for traveling when it comes to environmental impact.

This is a good example - Einstein's theoretical work resulted in massive improvements to our way of life.  The theory of relativity is a true theory. It can be tested and the evidence supports it.

The hypothesis of human produced CO2 induced global warming is untested and casual inspection does not indicate that it has much of a causation effect (the amount of CO2 in the air in 2006 is much higher now than it was in 1998 yet temperatures are lower).

The point is, there is no rational reason to believe that Al Gore has done anything at all for the cause of world peace. It's not even as it was in the case of Arafat where he did something concrete that one might agree or disagree with. 

Al Gore's contribution isn't even a matter of opinion. There is nothing to suggest he's done anything other than have a popular opinion. 

Worse, the negative consequences of Gore's views could have a very unpeaceful result - if CO2 is truly destroying the world and militarily weak countries are going to be the ones producing the bulk of it in the next 50 years then what is the most likely scenario. That is, if the very life of mankind itself is threatened by CO2 production, what do you think mankind will collectively do to weak nations producing excess CO2?

Fortunately for the rest of us, it's unlikely (in my view anyway) that human produced CO2 is having any measurable effect on the environment.  However, I am always supportive of initiatives that make us have less impact on the environment.  But that has nothing to do with world peace.

The fact that Gore won the prize just shows that the prize has truly become a joke.  It's not even remotely connected to concrete deeds anymore. Now it's just a progressive popularity contest.

If Gore renamed his book to " A convenient Lie" I could get behind it, then at least we could see where he is truly coming from.. popularity, limelight, money and who knows maybe a run for the Presidency. The scientific community is at odds about Gores take on global warming, but any scientist that takes an opposing view gets slammed, and slammed hard by the liberal media and the Secular left, tossed aside and discounted as malcontents, no matter how well bonafide their credentials are.

I mentioned the IPCC a few times and referenced a number of studies. Gore's film gives credit where credit is due. Besides, he has really done considerably more than just "go around talking about it." His environment work is decades long. Don't forget he write Earth in the Balance before he was Vice President.

Sorry, I am Charles. I accidentally replied under my wifes name. You may have mentioned them but you didn't really give them props for trying to save the world. Here, I'll give you an example:

Mr. Gore has done an incredible service to this planet and its people by bringing into clear focus a world environmental crisis that only kooks disagree is happening.

has been an advocate for the environment for thirty years.

If you see a train heading for a crash and try your best to stop it before it crashes I would say you are preventing a catastrophe.

You were speaking about Al Gore preventing a catastrophe here.

Gore works tirelessly.

Al Gore's film is a wake up call.

Gore has worked on behalf of our environment

Only that he was a hard working man who won a great prize for his work.

Every single one of the quotes came from your own replies where you put Al Gore on one really high alter but in reality is was the scientist that did all the real work and all you do is point to a couple of their findings. If anything, every one of those quotes above should instead read something like this:

The IPCC have done an incredible service to this planet and its people by bringing into clear focus a world environmental crisis that only kooks disagree is happening.

They have been advocates for the environment for thirty years.

If you see a train heading for a crash and try your best to stop it before it crashes I would say you are preventing a catastrophe.

You should be talking about how the IPCC (the actual scientists) are preventing a catastrophe

The IPCC works tirelessly.

The IPCC's studies is a wake up call.

The IPCC has worked on behalf of our environment

Only that they are hard working men who won a great prize for their work.

Now that would give the props to those who really deserve it. But God forbid they get any of the limelight. You mentioned them in the beginning of your article but only after Gore as oppose to before him. And then you make Al Gore the one who did it all. But that's OK. At least they got a prize as well. That's like the guy who was part of the group but barely got his hands dirty and won the prize as well.