Skip navigation

Gore shares Nobel Peace Prize

Associated Press

Former U.S. vice-president, UN panel on climate change named for efforts to spread awareness on global warming ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. JD Wood from Toronto, Canada writes: It is no surprise that Al Gore, who has discussed the biggest threat to personal safety today, is the winner of the peace prize. The important lesson for people like Stephen Harper here is that they need to focus on science and scientific understanding, instead of religious doctrine that has so far been the controlling factor in their tenure. It will be up to Harper to show that Canada is a strong world leader in logic, science, and reason -- something he has thus far failed at.
  2. I. C. from Brunei Darussalam writes: Oh, and the science of climate change isn't a religion?
  3. David Stanley from montreal, Canada writes: and alll the other planets are experiencing the same as Earth
    BOO what a sham
  4. Bobby the K from Bogarttown, Canada writes: .

    No, it's not a religion.
  5. Rollo Tomasi from Rock, Belgium writes: Gore from the floor in Denver?
  6. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange

    Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was yesterday criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were 'nine scientific errors' in the film.

    Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was
    'broadly accurate' in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in 'the context of alarmism and exaggeration' to support the former US vice-president's views on climate change.
  7. Joe Wallach from Russell, Ontario, Canada writes: JD Wood, what is Gore's scientific background? He has NONE! Though I don't support David Suzuki's rhetoric on the subject of global warming, at least he is a scientist and, in that regard alone, has far more credibility than the upcoming Democratic presidential candidate.

    Anthropogenic global warming is fear mongering because, as has been posted in the various G&M forums many times, there is abundant scientific evidence that the earth has undergone many natural heating and cooling cycles.

    Gore's being co-awarded the Nobel Peace Prize completely demeans this formerly prestigious award! It's only value now is the cash that goes with it.
  8. Graham Hanlon from Brampton, Canada writes: This is comparable to when they gave the NPP to Kissinger and Tho for ending the Vietnam war! Surely they must be joking...how about a NPP for Inconvenient Mistruths or how Generation Investment Managament grew from a little start up asset management company in one year! By the way congratulations, sort of, to the U.N. this would be the 6th or 7th NPP awarded to that venerable body or agencies within it. What a shame! Proof positive that you can fool the people all of the time.
  9. matt e from Canada writes: As long as there is big money in fossil fuels and unchecked consumerism,
    there will be clowns denying global warming. Its a fact people. What are you personally doing about it.
  10. Khalid Rahim from scarborough, Canada writes: His criticizers will come out with excuses! Never the less Al Gore had been working to make us realize the dangers of climatic changes. When he was the Vice-President of USA. Most at that time believed it
    as political move to gain popularity.But he was determined to show the world, how dangerously we were treading towards disaster and the ice-caps at the poles are proving it. Al Gore deserves the Prize.
  11. Paul Bowler from Canberra, Australia writes: So, having won the Nobel Peace Prize, Al will now announce his candidature for the Democrat nomination for the 2008 election. After he wins that nomination, he will chose Hilary Clinton as his vice-presidential running mate (she will accept), and they will win the 2008 election! Sweet irony - a former Veep is now the President, with the wife of his former President as his Veep! Perfect!
  12. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Joe Wallach from Russell, Ontario, Canada writes: 'there is abundant scientific evidence that the earth has undergone many natural heating and cooling cycles.'

    Apart from deniers, no-one has said that anthropogenic global warming and natural cycles are mutually exclusive.
  13. G. Sam from Canada writes: What a farce! Awarding that buffon any acknowledgement at all makes a complete mockery about real worth. Instead the award only advances the old adage that 'It pays to advertize'!
  14. Graham Hanlon from Brampton, Canada writes: Khalid Rahim from scarborough, Canada writes: His criticizers will come out with excuses! Never the less Al Gore had been working to make us realize the dangers of climatic changes. When he was the Vice-President of USA. Most at that time believed it
    as political move to gain popularity.But he was determined to show the world, how dangerously we were treading towards disaster and the ice-caps at the poles are proving it. Al Gore deserves the Prize.

    Khalid, are you aware that the ice cap in Antartica is actually growing?

    I will give Mr. Gore his due, he has raised the awareness of global warming, however by using scare tactics and mistruths he discredits himself and by virtue of that makes this award nothing more than an exercise in propoganda.
  15. Lesley D from India writes: someone has won the nobel peace prize on the basis or increasing global awareness to climate change... and its Al Gore?? what about the hundreds that came before him and are actually scientists, not preaching ex-politicians. why not give it to DAVID SUZUKI
  16. Joe Wallach from Russell, Ontario, Canada writes: Hugh Campbell, I agree that natural and anthropogenic global warming are not mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, what percentage of global warming is due to human activity?

    To matt e from Canada, I personally am doing much more than Gore to protect the environment because I don't live in a mansion that consumes the vast amounts of energy that his does. Also I don't have numerous homes, as he allegedly does, nor do I fly to conferences on private planes.

    My point is not to brag because, in reality, I can't afford to own or do what Gore does, but it is to underscore Gore's unmitigated hypocrisy in this issue. If he were a man of honor, he would give it back.
  17. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: If the ultimate hat trick in this life is to win the Nobel, an Oscar and be president of the United States, Mr. Gore already officially has two in the bag, and many say he actually won the presidency as well. What an extraordinary individual. I hope his work will save Earth from global warming.
  18. TED DICKIE from LIVERPOOL,NOVA SCOTIA, Canada writes: To G.Sam,re: Buffon? You,got the wrong 'Buffon?' He's in the Oval Office.Where,Al Gore should have been----if not for,those 'hanging chads' in Florida? The entire world has paid a very heavy price for that 'Buffon!'And America will continue for many years to pay for Junior's screw-ups!'
  19. Michael Crowell from Halifax, Canada writes: This weekend Al and his Hollywood friends like Laura David will celebrate this marketing masterpiece that made them all even richer than before. Behind those gated communities at the parties they will all have a good laugh on how stupid the people are to fall for this glamour induced spell. Meanwhile in the time it takes to complete just one Hollywood party 10,000 children will strave to death all alone. Some poor aid worker or doctor who has given his or her life to aliviate this situation will hear this news about Al and just shake their heads. A Peace Prize for Al Gore, this has to be a joke. My thanks and hopes are with the thousand who are the ones who really deserve this award. The Noble Peace Prize has reached a new low point.
  20. Bill M from Canada writes: What exactly does a documentary on the climate have to do with world peace? Have they stopped the slaughter in dafur because of this movie?

    And as an aside, for all the Goracles who claim every leading scientist is convinced about global warming, go to iceagenow.com and check out some of the links. Some very interesting information there.
  21. t scot from Canada writes: Conservatives must have a difficult time following the oil lobby's directives on global warming. I find it amusing to read their b. s.
    Congradulations to Al Gore.
  22. Expert Eel from Canada writes: It's about time Gore got a nobel prize.

    He should have won one for inventing the internets.
  23. janfromthe bruce from Canada writes: And to tag onto Ted Dickiet from liverpool, Nova Scotia's ending comment, 'And America will continue for many years to pay for Junior's screw-ups!' Not anywhere as much as Iran is paying with their lives and country now thrown into secratarian violence.
  24. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: What, Britney Spears wasn't available?
  25. t scot from Canada writes: Bill M...you must be a troubled individual. Why nor err on the side side of the planets survival?
  26. Chris K from Hong Kong writes: Well, I guess Michael Crowell hangs in better circles than I do. Enjoy your weekend Michael. Maybe Joe Wallach can join you as he obviously knows much about Al Gore's life than the rest of us. Don't believe everything you read folks -- the man never said he invented the Internet, by way of example. While I can't say I completely understand the connect between a Nobel Peace Prize and global warming, at least this is someone who got off his rear end and brought a very relevant topic to light in most of the world. He made some mistakes doing so, yes, but at least he's got the brain cells to say we're all in this together. Unless you live on Graham Hanlon's planet, wherever that may be because no one in their right mind can claim to state that the Antarctic ice cap is growing.
  27. Out of Toronto, finally from Montréal, Canada writes: Wow, the bozos are out in full force today. I bet that M Wente will soon write another climate change critic column. Science and world opinion have moved on years ago, it is time that the Harperites move on! Congrats Al Gore!
  28. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: I called this years ago, but I thought it would take him longer. People are sheep....Al Gore winning a Peace Prize proves it.
  29. D W from Halifax, Canada writes: Expert eel. Kudos :)

    For anyone who would congratulate Gore there is no sense in trying to reason with them. Their religion is Environmentalism and like an belief, it completely ignores reason or logic.

    Al Gore is in it for the money, fame and power...and he doesn't care how many lies he has to tell to get there....as long as there are puppets to believe, there are fools that will award him prizes....almost as foolish as Arafat be awarded it.
  30. Bill M from Canada writes: t scot from Canada writes: Bill M...you must be a troubled individual. Why nor err on the side side of the planets survival?

    t scot: I've done everything I can, for what's it's worth. but when I see Goracle fear mongering, while setting up a company that buys and sells carbon credits, and I see Suzuki accepting donations from the worlds largest manufacturer of hybrid cars, I get a tad suspicious. When Suzuki left his diesel bus running for three hours last February in Calgary, so it would stay warm to transport he and his entourage of eight the four blocks to his hotel, and then said it's okay because he buys carbon credits, I start to think that this Kyoto Accord is a scheme designed for the rich. When they tax gasoline so you pay $5 a litre, the highways will still be full of gas guzzling SUV's, but they won't be driven by the working class people.
  31. M S from Toronto, Canada writes: Congratulations to Gore, the rightful president of the United States. Imagine what the last seven years might have been like with him in office instead of George 'Yip yip yahoo let's conquer the Mid-East' Bush.
  32. B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States writes: Graham Hanlon from Brampton, Canada writes: This is comparable to when they gave the NPP to Kissinger and Tho for ending the Vietnam war!

    Right, and as I commented yesterday, similar to handing it to Yasser Arafat for his efforts towards peace in the Middle East. A few years ago, they awarded it to the UN... about as relevant as Time magazine naming 'you' as the Person of the Year. Or when they recently gave it to Jimmy Carter, thirty years after his presidency. I can't wait until Bill Gates wins it for his humanitarian and charitable contributions...and is forced to share it with Bono, because, you know, creating worldwide understanding about a problem is more important than actually doing something about it.

    When does Moore win his NPP for Farenheit 9/11?
  33. dean spence from bright old city, ontario, Canada writes: Absolutely hilarious. The nobel is now driven by a mixture of stupidity, pop culture and left wing politics. ON the bright side - gore for president!!! I wuld love to see the goracle mess up the democratic renewal.
    I guess this prize will go in the trophy room of the mega-mansion he uses to save energy.
  34. David any from Loon-a-Tick, Canada writes: Congratulations Al. You aren't a loser after all. The greatest danger to my personal life was the day you didn't wrestle the Presidency out of Bush and his Bubas hands in Florida. ' A Faint heart never won a Fair Lady.'
    Well you don't need to be President to be a leader.
  35. Bill M from Canada writes: dean spence from bright old city, ontario, Canada writes: Absolutely hilarious. The nobel is now driven by a mixture of stupidity, pop culture and left wing politics. ON the bright side - gore for president!!! I wuld love to see the goracle mess up the democratic renewal.
    I guess this prize will go in the trophy room of the mega-mansion he uses to save energy.

    The mega mansion is okay though. He buys carbon credits from himself.
  36. Mike McFae from Canada writes: Just because some people don't think much of Al Gore doesn't mean they are deniers. The climate is constantly changing and we are presently experiencing global warming. Unfortunately Gore has milked this subject for all its worth and the NPP Committee should have stayed away from this opportunist. Gore's specialty is marketing and promotion and he is one of the world's best spinners which probably explains how such an uncharismatic person became Vice-President of the US. His movie was littered with untruths and they are slowly being recognized as such. History will not be kind to his movie in the same vein as we now marvel as the naivety of the hysteric reaction to Orwell's '1984' . I hope that Gore someday will use his talents to address AIDS, cancer or child poverty.
  37. Chris K from Hong Kong writes: Instead of crapping on anyone and everyone, perhaps instead we should be asking what we've done about any given problem? And then shut up about it.
  38. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: If Winston Churchill can receive the Nobel Prize for Literature, then Al Gore might as well get one for Peace.
  39. Pete Kauchak, Red Tory from Cascadia, Canada writes: Well I was a believer in the climate change hysteria but now I'm not so sure...More recent studies have proven that the lifetime of CO2 in our atmosphere is only 5-7 years and not the 100 years the IPCC has claimed and that temperature changes will only be half of what the IPCC report says it will be.If anyone can debunk these studies and make me a believer again then please do so. I'm listening

    http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDc0MTY2NmVlOWNiNjc4ODk0NGUzMDE2YTRlMjMxNzc=
  40. D W from Halifax, Canada writes: M S from Toronot, my guess is the US would be short a few more skyscrapers.
  41. James C. from Chaozhou, Guangdong, China writes: as some have said, al gore has at least done something to raise awareness, even if what the methods he's used to bring that awareness about are a bit suspect.

    i cant make the connection between what al gore has done and PEACE, there are certainly other people out in the world working towards peace in various places that will likely remain unknown and that deserve the nobel PEACE prize. the criteria for winning this award seem very nebulous these days.

    i suppose in the coming decades, if we dont do anything to reduce emissions and everyone eventually starts fighting each other for water and habitable land, then the reasons for this award might become more clear.
  42. John McCaffery from Warragul, Australia writes: It is all about politics - nothing to do with peace. What has Gore done for peace? Maybe it was meant to be Noble Piece, not Nobel Peace honours for the film!
  43. M P from Ottawa, Canada writes: Wow. What a group today on this board. Human activity is changing the climate. Previous natural warming and cooling trends did not occur when there were 6 billion people on the planet belching out ghg emissions 24/7.
    Even if you don't buy the science, at least buy the fact that human activity is changing this planet and not for the better.
  44. Dave a Conservative from Ottawa, Canada writes: Apparently, the selection committee was by Mr. Bean.

    GWB is sharing the prize with Gore for GWB role in 'bringing peace to the Middle East.'

    Oh, what's that? Yes, Gore also won the Nobel Prize for 'inventing' the internet too!

    pathetic.
  45. James C. from Chaozhou, Guangdong, China writes: maybe there ought to be a 'Miscellaneous' category for the Nobel Prize.

    and the Nobel Prize for Disparate and Unclassifiable Activity goes to Al Gore. that's mroe like it....
  46. Tim Bee from Canada writes: What does that have to do with peace?
  47. Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: The only thing half sensible about this award is that it was NOT for science, physics or any other technical excellence. As for a 'Peace' award, many of the posters are right, it should have been a 'Religion' award. Mr Gore's evangelical rants based on little more than contrived assumptions, bad science and largely faith can only be classed as religious and more specifically 'Cultism'. Mr Nobel, if he is watching, has witnessed his attempt to reward excellence dashed against the rocks of political expediency. Shame on the administrators of his awards, you have violated the very essence of them. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.
  48. Chris K from Hong Kong writes: Dave a Conservative from Ottawa: once you divert yourself from Mr Bean movies, go read something! You'll find out, among many other things, that the comment about the Internet never happened. Start questioning things, stop whining!
  49. Jacob Alderman from Toronto, Canada writes: Excellent. anyone who has studied the causes of war knows full well that, though wars are started by social decisions, the underlying cause of such discontent is often economic... and often based on resource availability.

    Climate change threatens our basic resource base... will water still flow to Alberta if there's no snow left in the Rockies, for example. And how will people react when they can no longer feed themselves? Revolution? War? Ethnic cleansing?

    Global climate change is the world's greatest threat to peace.
  50. Pete Kauchak, Red Tory from Cascadia, Canada writes: M P from Ottawa, Canada writes: Wow. What a group today on this board. Human activity is changing the climate. Previous natural warming and cooling trends did not occur when there were 6 billion people on the planet belching out ghg emissions 24/7.
    Even if you don't buy the science, at least buy the fact that human activity is changing this planet and not for the better.

    But it's not as bad as the IPCC makes it out to be hence the term 'alarmism'. Newer studies (as recent as a month ago) are showing some aspects of the report are wrong
  51. Ex Drone from Ottawa, Canada writes: D W from Halifax, Canada writes: '... For anyone who would congratulate Gore there is no sense in trying to reason with them. Their religion is Environmentalism and like an belief, it completely ignores reason or logic.'

    It's 2007, not 1987. We now have sufficient evidence, collated by the IPCC, to support the theory of anthropogenic climate change. It is science, not religion, because it is evidence based. The evidence is published (see http://www.ipcc.ch/) and rationally discussed (see http://www.realclimate.org/). Criticism is always useful in scientific discussion, but blind denialism is both pointless and distracting. Climate change denialism has become an obsessive conspiracy theory on level with the beliefs that man did not land on the moon and that the US government committed the 9/11 attacks.
  52. Michael Thompson from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: Fanatical leader of a cult wins Nobel Peace Prize. Now I've seen everything.
  53. Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: MP from Ottawa. Human activity certainly is contributing to the carbon dioxide issue. Since 1850, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted daily to the atmosphere due to human breathing by the increased population alone is in the order of 7,000,000 tonnes. That is, total humans on earth today emit 7,000,000 more tonnes of carbon dioxide than the total humans on earth in 1850 did. Unfortunately Mr Gore and the Goracle Cult (including the Nobel Prize committee) have taken this to heart and reduced their breathing accordingly. This has deprived their brains of oxygen thus explaining his movie and the award.
  54. Grant McSheffrey from Ottawa, writes: First of all, I agree completely about the disconnect between Gore's environmentalism and a peace prize (especially if you read the exact criteria for the prize). Second, while I think much more needs to be done about climate change, I think it's ridiculous to give this prize to someone who practices the hypocrisy of Al Gore. From his pollution-spewing flights around the world, to his energy sucking mansion, the man just does not practice what he preaches.

    For stats regarding the energy use of his home (and a surprising comparison with Dubya's home): http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp.
  55. Old blue from Canada writes: The leader of the Moonies and other cults are undoubtedly very much encouraged by Gore being awarded the Peace Prize. If nothing else, the cash could go a long way in helping Mr. Gore pay his enormous carbon footprint bill.
  56. David any from Loon-a-Tick, Canada writes: It's like this...liberal minded people are always'for things' and conservative minded people 'are against'. When this model is applied to the board today there are a lot of ' Nega-Tories' out there.
    I have tradmarked and patented this name so don't try to use it without sending me five bucks OK?
    The sky is blue and it will be a wonderful day today!
    'NEGA-TORIE!' TM
  57. Ashley McBride from Canada writes: umm... the caption of his picture is misleading... He was never President of the United States.
  58. Guillaume Afleck from Canada writes: What a sham. Arafat and Gore together where they belong. What rank hypocrisy!
  59. Robert Dryburgh from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada writes: The Nobel Prize has just become another a meaningless gesture. It can now take it’s place with the Oscars, Grammies and the like.
  60. Ed Andrews from Edmonton, Canada writes: What a joke this is. Obviously lies aren't inconvenient. And don't forget Jimma Cahta and the killer rabbit.
  61. M S from Toronto, Canada writes: The sheer amount of right-wing hate on this board is staggering. One guy compares Gore to cult leader Moon. Another, even more bizarrely, compares him to mass murderer Arafat.

    Grow up, people. Just grow up.
  62. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: David any: You neglected to mention that most of the 'things' that 'liberal minded people' are 'for' are usually naive hare-brained schemes disassociated from reality. ;-)
  63. Leon Russell from Gatineau, Canada writes: Environmentalism may well be a religion, but it's a religion for our times. All religions once had relevance for the communities that adhered to them, and they were instrumental in promoting cohesion within the society and thus favouring the survival and development of the group. Most are now anachronistic or have morphed within the modern context to provide some benefits to their followers. If environmentalism is a religion, then we need more preachers like Al Gore that will fire up the revival tents with their sermons and convert the masses. Most are converted, but they are just 'Sunday-go-to-meetin'' environmentalists. We can't really burn heretics that leave their Hummers idling but if we can jail people for downloading music, we can certainly put some teeth into environmental legislation. Amen, brother.
  64. James M from Canada writes: Joe Wallach from Russell, Ontario, Canada writes: JD Wood, what is Gore's scientific background? He has NONE! Though I don't support David Suzuki's rhetoric on the subject of global warming, at least he is a scientist and, in that regard alone, has far more credibility than the upcoming Democratic presidential candidate. Anthropogenic global warming is fear mongering because, as has been posted in the various G&M forums many times, there is abundant scientific evidence that the earth has undergone many natural heating and cooling cycles. Gore's being co-awarded the Nobel Peace Prize completely demeans this formerly prestigious award! It's only value now is the cash that goes with it. I find it quite ironic that you put down Gore for not having a scientific background, but then report that it has been noted numerous times by posters that the cycle is natural. Gore is a presenter of scientific knowledge. He didnt' gather it himself! How boring would the presentation be if some guy with an 80lb head were on the stage? So, you'd rather believe a few anonymous posters than an ex-Vice President?
  65. Bill M from Canada writes: Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: David any: You neglected to mention that most of the 'things' that 'liberal minded people' are 'for' are usually naive hare-brained schemes disassociated from reality. ;-)

    And these hair brained schemes are usually thought up by Liberals(Maurice Strong) and involve taking money from citizens under the guise of a good cause (carbon tax), taking a cut (Dion-'20 % for administration') and then passing it along to another Liberal type (Al Gore- Generation Capital Investment).
  66. Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes:

    Wait... the best is yet to come... harper will win the exxon oil prize for the single most positive contribution to their profit margins.... due to harper's rather sick concept of the impossibility of achieving scientifically established targets for lessening the global climatic threat.

    and even better... harper will deliberately force a non-confidence collapse of his horrific muzzlement with a throne speech garanteed to do just that over his stance on kyoto.

    no wonder so many are expressing their anti-harper sentiments by electing majority anti-harper governments in ON and NL for example.

    DUMP HARPER!
  67. gerhard beck from Canada writes: The ignorance of a great percentage of posters is truly amazing. Congratulations to Mr. Gore who certainly would have made a better president than the present Dumbo in the White House. For those posters, dont worry, you will in all probability not experience the full effects of global warming. That will be suffered by generations following you, and you would not want to hear their comments about your shortsightedness.
  68. Steve Petrica from Bethesda, Md., United States writes: This award is on the same level as the one to Rigoberto Menchu.
  69. Mark McGrath from Canada writes: hahaha One of the best posts I've read here.

    Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: MP from Ottawa. Human activity certainly is contributing to the carbon dioxide issue. Since 1850, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted daily to the atmosphere due to human breathing by the increased population alone is in the order of 7,000,000 tonnes. That is, total humans on earth today emit 7,000,000 more tonnes of carbon dioxide than the total humans on earth in 1850 did. Unfortunately Mr Gore and the Goracle Cult (including the Nobel Prize committee) have taken this to heart and reduced their breathing accordingly. This has deprived their brains of oxygen thus explaining his movie and the award.
  70. Earl Anthony from Sudbury, Canada writes: I only wish the global warming issue was about saving the planet. This issue is really about frightening the public into giving government control of every aspect of our lives and justifying massive increases in taxation.

    Carbon dioxide is not a poison.
  71. Dark Green from Grandma's Inn, Cuba writes: Better the Nobel Peace Prize than the FOSSIL AWARD! Poor Ambrosian Harperite lot! Poor present day Bushmen!
  72. J. Collins from United Kingdom writes: If lies and half trusths is the key to open the Nobel Peace prize door a Lieberal PM would have won it a long ago. What a mockery of an honour that makes a fool of the real scientists ansd academics who have worked for years to make a real difference to the world. The man is a clown, a cheat and money grabber. Hell he sounds exactly like a Lieberal.

    DUMP CELINE.
  73. Bill H from London, Canada writes: Paul Bowler from Canberra, Australia writes: So, having won the Nobel Peace Prize, Al will now announce his candidature for the Democrat nomination for the 2008 election. After he wins that nomination, he will chose Hilary Clinton as his vice-presidential running mate (she will accept), and they will win the 2008 election! Sweet irony - a former Veep is now the President, with the wife of his former President as his Veep! Perfect! Actually, Paul, I think your senario is not out of the realm of possibility. who could deny the presidency to one who holds the Nobel Peace Prize. The truth is that Gore, even with all the established factual and conceptual errors in his movie, probably couldn't have screwed up as president any worse than the incombent. The real problem in the world today is that there are no longer any statesmen (or statespersons) or true leaders. The US political system, as vaunted as it has been as the 'holy grail' of governments, is as screwed up as any other. As far as the NPP, this has become a purely political football. Remember that the peace prize was not in Nobel's original bequest. That was for science and medicine and, I believe, literature. The peace prize was invented by the Nobel committee some time later. It would nice to see it awarded to someone who really sought to achieve real 'peace' in this world, but I don't think the committee knows the meaning of the word. And when has the world ever known true peace anyway?
  74. K Wong from Victoria, BC, Canada writes: Many Albertans are going to love this development when they wake up...

    As for the National Review, certainly there is no single unbiased peer-reviewed journal like it. Their scholarly articles on scientific issues are without peer and need no further inquiry. Who needs to read the actual boring, factual IPCC reports (written by thousands of equally boring scientists) at http://www.ipcc.ch/ when we can get all the science we can stomach from the National Review?
  75. Ed Andrews from Edmonton, Canada writes: MS from Toronto;obviously you have missed the point entirely; the Nobel foundation has compared Gore to Arafat in that Arafat also won the prize (in case you didn't know) in 1992.
  76. M S from Toronto, Canada writes: No, I did not miss the point. The previous poster could have chosen any other NPP recipient he didn't feel was deserving. That he specifically chose a career terrorist was, I suspect, intentional. It's the same way anyone and everyone a person disagrees with these days is 'Hitler' or a 'Nazi.'
  77. Expert Eel from Canada writes: I bet that John Baird wasn't one of the Nobel committee members who voted for Al.
  78. Ed Andrews from Edmonton, Canada writes: So you are saying that Arafat and Gore are not in the same category even though they both won Peace Prizes? And you are obviously critical of the Nobel foundation for having given the prize to a mass murderer, but it is entirely ok for them to have given it to Gore?
  79. Luke Walker from Toronto, Canada writes: Gore's film has been the subject of a legal action. The Court found that the film was misleading in 11 ways: CLAIM that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not true. CLAIM evidence from ice cores proves rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650k years. The Court found this misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years. Claim that Hurricane Katrina caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was 'not possible' to attribute one-off events to global warming. CLAIM the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case. CLAIM that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice.In fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm. CLAIM that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility. CLAIM that blame of global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
  80. Andre Lamoureux from Canada writes: Absolutely unbelievable. Whether global warming is occuring or not, what does it have to do with a Nobel Peace Prize? With wars raging across the world, they give the prize to Al Gore, whose documentary is currently being reviewed for unconsistencies and exagerations. Why not also give him the Noble Prize for Economics on Monday...that would make more sense.
  81. Bill M from Canada writes: Dark Green from Grandma's Inn, Cuba writes: Better the Nobel Peace Prize than the FOSSIL AWARD! Poor Ambrosian Harperite lot! Poor present day Bushmen!

    Why do goracles automatically assume that anyone who has the slightest doubt about the global warming scare is a conservative and loves George Bush? For the record, I am not a Conservative, I think Harper can be a tool, and George Bush is an absolute idiot. But i also think that money is the driving force behind Kyoto. A lot of people stand to make boat loads off regular people, while it does next to nothing to solve the real issue. As long as China, India, Russia, and so on continue to spew unchecked because they are 'developing', we can shut this whole country down and now make a single dent in world wide CO2 emmisions. And no, I don't advocate we do nothing, but let's be reasonable about it.
  82. billy bob from Timmins, Canada writes: The earth naturally goes through cycles of being warm and cold and actually cold is coming up next.Actually an ice age will be in the cards.Maybe global warming will prevent that from happening or could if not for gore.Having a warm arctic may seem bad but having an ice age with ice a mile deep over the top half of north america will necessitate some lifestyle changes too.
  83. Help Me JEBUS! from Canada writes:

    Jebus loves his Goracle!
  84. M S from Toronto, Canada writes: Ed: Yes, I am. End of discussion.
  85. Kim Huynh from Montreal, Canada writes: I thought climate change is a subject of science, not world peace's. I guess the idea of giving AL Gore and al this prize is fully loaded with political sexiness. After all, Le Duc Tho refused to accept this prize while Dr K have gladly accepted it decades ago while the war in VietNam continued...What a sad event. Meatime, the scaremonger fans will continue to rally behind now Dr Gore, whose background is far from that of a scientist.
  86. Mark McGrath from Canada writes: K Wong from Victoria, BC, Canada
    Who needs to read the actual boring, factual IPCC reports (written by thousands of equally boring scientists) at http://www.ipcc.ch/

    Here is an interesting article for you to read K Wong http://faxanadu.gnn.tv/blogs/24999/GlobalWarmingWhatMediaWontTellYouAboutUNClimatePanel
  87. Anthony B from Sydney, NS, Canada writes: Lesley D from India writes: 'What about the hundreds that came before him and are actually scientists, not preaching ex-politicians....'

    Agreed. Naming Al Gore (and those who've won in previous years) indicates that the Nobel Prize for Peace is more about raising the profile of the prize than the person it honours.
  88. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: I have asked this question before on these boards. It is an honest one, but no-one has attempted to reply.

    If the idea of human-caused global warming is so wrong, how do you account for the fact that every major scientific organization in the western world says that it is a growing threat? These include: the National Academies of Science of the United States, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, the National Research Council of Canada, the Australian National Academy of Science, and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, all of which post strong statements about human-caused global warming on their websites. Some of them debunk particular canards such as it is all the sun's fault, Antarctic ice is actually growing, or other planets are warming. What about the Canadian Council of Chief Executive Officers? Or the Pentagon, which warns that human-caused global warming is a clear, present, and growing danger to world peace?

    I don't suggest that everyone simply follow the crowd. But this does seem a bit overwhelming. And, I think if people want to toss of easy lines about the whole thing being a hoax or not terribly important, they have a responsibility to explain how all those experts can get it so very wrong.
  89. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Congrats to Gore, but his needless concession of the 2000 presidential race precludes him being seriously considered for the 2008 Democratic nomination. . . . And let the Global Warming Deniers go on their way -- the latest newsflash from them is that greenhouse gases don't even exist! . . . but what would you expect from a group that gets its talking points from Faux News.
  90. Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: I didn't know they gave out awards for fake science.

    Suzuki must be pi$$ed today. He should have at least received a Best Supporting Fake Science award.
  91. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Dave T wrote: 'If Winston Churchill can receive the Nobel Prize for Literature, then Al Gore might as well get one for peace.'

    Have you read Churchill's six-volume 'The Second World War' or his four-volume 'History of the English-speaking Peoples' (which I think is his best work) or any of his many other writings? Churchill was a writer by trade, and a very good one.

    It is so easy to belittle. Work is a bit more difficult. But with the resources readily available on the Internet these days, one would think people could at least check Wikipedia.
  92. Ed Andrews from Edmonton, Canada writes: To MS From Toronto: So you are saying that the previous poster should not have chosen Arafat to compare Gore to, but another peace prize winner that is acceptable to you, or else you will call him names ('grow up people grow up'). Would it have been acceptable to you if he had chosen Mother Teresa?
  93. Guns, SUVs and Hooters from United States writes: You can all slag off Gore, but if he turns out to be even 50% correct in his predictions, then he will forever be viewed as a pioneer and a forward thinker. I think it's fair to say that the odds of Gore being 50% correct--if you look at the science--are about 100%.
  94. Jim Hester from Mississauga, Canada writes: Exactly how has Al Gore advanced the course of peace in any region in the world?

    He has done much to raise awareness of our polluting ways. He has done little to help in the any peace making cause.
  95. Guy Macher from Celebration Florida, United States writes: Gentlemen, the word is BUFFOON. Please enable your spell checker!
  96. western thought from Calgary, Canada writes: Finally, a Nobel Prize for one of the greatest Public Relations campaigns of all time - one that earned enough money to finance a presidential campaign. The environmental movement thought it was about them and the world's media bought the whole thing - hook, line and sinker.
  97. Confucious Smith from Canada writes: Guillaume Afleck from Canada writes: What a sham. Arafat and Gore together where they belong. What rank hypocrisy!

    ....and don't forget Carter.
  98. Expert Eel from Canada writes: I agree with Guy Macher, David Suzuki also deserves a Nobel Prize.

    Thanks Guy
  99. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Jim Hester from Mississauga, Canada writes: Exactly how has Al Gore advanced the course of peace in any region in the world?'

    It is not unreasonable. Recent studies show a direct link between food crisis (i.e. drought) and regional warfare. The disruption and refugee issues that will be created by climate change over the next century are potentially more devastating than thermonuclear war.
  100. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: What a joke. It's a peace prize, not a trophy depicting a horses rear end.
  101. Ed Andrews from Edmonton, Canada writes: To Confusious Smith; and don't forget the killer rabbit.
  102. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    Is it April 1st already?
  103. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: I didn't know they gave out awards for fake science.'

    They don't, which is why they awarded it to Gore and the IPCC. Neither had anything to do with creating or publishing science. Both merely reported the state of climate science and the consequences in economic, social and political areas. Remember that this is the Peace Prize, not the physics prize.
  104. Marie White from Canada writes: The caption for your side picture identifies Gore as 'Former U.S. President Al Gore .' Might want to take a second look at that.
  105. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Confucious Smith from Canada writes: Guillaume Afleck from Canada writes: What a sham. Arafat and Gore together where they belong. What rank hypocrisy!

    ....and don't forget Carter. '

    Awarding a prize in politically divisive areas will always result in partisan rhetoric from those who are biased and dishonest.
  106. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Luke Walker: Your summary of the British court case about Gore's film is scalped (plaigarized) from a Vancouver Province column. That column is seriously flawed. The original in the Province explicitly pointed out a couple of the major flaws in it own presentation but the version Canada.com carried dropped the qualifying paragraph. In allowing Gore's film to be used in British schools, despite it being part of a campaign that could be construed as political, the judge concluded: '17 ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton: 'The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC: (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ('climate change'); (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ('greenhouse gases'); (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects.' These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists.'
  107. A A from Canada writes: Who cares if He is right or wrong, or if he there is some scientific inaccuracy.

    The most crucial thing is it creates awareness in this day and age where news tends to focus more about stories like Lindsay Lohan dumping her Mom as manager.

    I don't know who to beleive about this global warming crisis but there has to be some truth somewhere in the middle.
  108. Grey Rabbit from Canada writes: What a scam
    This puts a huge hole in the credibility of Nobel peace prize
    How about his son ?
    Everybody who drives a Pious should get one too
  109. A day in the life of one Canadian from Canada writes: You people all make my a$$ twitch! Everyone has their own opinion - I can live with that. People have opposing opinions - I can live with that. When defending your position using invective and demeaning language, you show the rest of us what you really believe. That your view is the only view that can possibly be right, and, by God, the rest of you are stupid.
    Well, that destroys your credibility immediately.
    I would trust science over ideology any day.
    Have fun bashing each other! It's going to be a nice day today!
  110. R Fitz from Canada writes: I am very pleased that Mr. Gore and the intergovt council has been awarded this honor. Anyone that doesn't believe in global warning obviously are living life with blinders on! I grew up on Canada's East Coast and we NEVER had as many iceburgs and the summers are reaching past 30 degrees! I now live in Florida and the weather never gets cool (as many Floridians that have lived here all their life can attest the winters were beautful here - now its always summer!)It a continual warming trend! Don't fall into the big oil spin machine and believe nothing is happening! And as for the person that commented on MR Gore many manisons and how much he pollutes - he is actually carbon neutral! His family has offset their usuage by donating trees and other environmental projects... you can go online and look for ways to do this yourself! I hope people open their eyes and start making the changes in their own lives before its to late. Hey even if you don't believe in global warming - u have to believe polluting our country isn't a good thing! So why not help the environment by making small changes in your life! Use recycled toliet paper and papertowels, switch your light bulbs to engery efficent ones, donate trees to help clean our air, recycle, drive fuel efficient cars, etc. There are ways just to help your local environment which inturn helps the entire planet!
  111. Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: Bob Beal from Edmonton the answer to your question is quite simple. It is the difference between Global Warming and Human Caused Global Warming. Most of the posters on this board that are supposedly the horrible neo-cons or as one poster called us the nega-tories believe that there is global warming but that it hasn't been proven to be caused by humans. We also believe that this whole process has gotten so politicized and emotional that the rationality of the argument was lost a long time ago. Skeptical scientists are readily denounced as frauds/hacks or other such derisive terms. There have been scientists that were part of the IPCC that have quit stating that the whole process was too political and that they were only using infromation that met their already agreed upon conclusions. In fact Bob one can look at the Kyoto treaty here in Canada for example. If you actually read most of the treaty and see what each country agreed to you would have realized that this treaty in itself wasn't going to achieve anything significant environmentally. Canada as a country had by far the most ardous task in order to meet their treaty obligations. Even after all of this the environmental groups to this day try and get Canada to meet its obligations despite the negative impact this would have on the Canadian economy and the very negligible to nonexistant effect this would have on the envrionment. It is this kind of actions undertaken by the environmental groups that call into question their motivation. To make a point or to make a difference?
  112. Roy McPhail from Winnipeg, Canada writes: In the mix of considerations, I include graphs such as I found at:

    www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA3.html

    I also take hope that it seems we need a global project to become a global village.

    Let's maintain good will as we debate our options. I predict that the next big topic will be the development of carbon dioxide removal technology.
  113. Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: R Fitz I don't understand how you can justify anybody being carbon neutral because they decide to plant trees or buy carbon credits. They are still massive users of the very energy that they tell us we use too much of. The fact that people buy into this crap but tell Harper that his scheme is baked because their are no hard craps are the kings of hypocrites(not saying this is you). Gore can pollute as much as he wants because he offsets it with credits but a company can't pollute as much as they want despite what they do because they are big bad corporations that are out to rape us. Please people be consistent with your outrage.
  114. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: So much for the Nobel Prize. Ok I'll respect the science ones but if Goracle wins one for propaganda the next one should go to Iran for human rights and truth. Scam.
    The man secretes insincerity. Another bid for the White House? I do agree he is right up there with Arafat.
  115. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Awarding this to Al Gore has now relegated the once-venerated Nobel Peace Prize to the same level as the Juno Awards and other useless trinkets....maybe they will start putting them in Cracker Jacks boxes.
  116. Joshua er from Canada writes: The real question are any of you helping out the environment? I doubt it, live your life as it is and your grandchildren etc. will inherit a dying earth, maybe not. I'm more of a pragmatist and will see what part I can do to help.
  117. always right from Canada writes: And thus, the stature of the Nobel Peace Prize is diminished even MORE ...
  118. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: ' Grey Rabbit from Canada writes: What a scam
    This puts a huge hole in the credibility of Nobel peace prize'

    What are you talking about? I value my Nobel Peace prize. I had to dig it out from the bottom of the box of my Corn Flakes this morning. Looks great. I'll hang it in my garage.
  119. Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: 'They don't, which is why they awarded it to Gore and the IPCC. Neither had anything to do with creating or publishing science. Both merely reported the state of climate science and the consequences in economic, social and political areas. Remember that this is the Peace Prize, not the physics prize.'

    Ian, my question was rhetorical but thanks for the answer just the same. Still trying to connect the dots tho' -- fake science reports contributing to world peace? It doesn't add up. From reading the exchanges between the 'Kool-Aid Drinkers' on one side and the 'Deniers' on the other, I think he has contributed to world disharmony.
  120. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: Congratulations to the Nobel Peace Price on making clear that IPCC and Al Gore are not scientists but ideologists of the left. Given that Literature price went to the British communist (once communist is always communist) Nobel reached its bottom. It used to be that they did not award Nobel for unestablished subjects (Einstein for example did not get his Nobel for relativity) now they look for it. Science is to follow probably.
  121. J Kay from Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk: Your post is an outright fabrication of lies and mistruths. Canada did NOT in anyway have the most arduous task regarding Kyoto. Canada's targets were 6% below 1990' levels where most other OECD countries that were bound by it had targets of 8% below 1990s levels, including oil producing countries like Norway and this considering the fact that Canada has some of the highest per capita energy use on the planet.
  122. R Fitz from Canada writes: Dan

    I can see your point about simply polluting and then buying off our wrong doing with points and trees... I guess my point is more to the fact we have to aware of what we personally do to the environment. If you do pollute (and lets face it we all do by virtue of our lives today!) be aware of what you are doing and take responsiblity. So if you can buy credits or plant some trees to help reduce your impact on the pollution whats wrong with that???? I think its better than sticking your head in the sand and saying well its not my problem - I pay my electric bills and sucks to be you if you live next to the coal plant thats emitting all the pollutants....

    it goes back to accepting responbility for your part - and trying to help offset that....
  123. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Dan: You didn't answer my question. The thing is that every major scientific organization in the world says the problem is human-caused global warming. They don't mince words about it.

    If people want to believe that humans are not the major cause of the recent, unprecedented warming, fine. But how do they presume to disagree with the strong statements of the experts?

    I am not asking these questions to put anyone down. In my own field, anyone is welcome to disagree with my conclusions, whether my conclusions happen to be inside or outside the mainstream in my field. But if they do that, they should have some good ammunition because I have done the actual research, the work.
  124. B Coopz from Brantford, Canada writes: Eat that George W. Harper!!!
  125. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: J Kay for your information, 100% of electricity in Norway, because of the geography, small 4 millions population, and small territory is hydro. During 1990's Canada and US had technological boom, that Europe did not have. Chretien left us with a very bad deal and bad legacy.
  126. George Hall from Canada writes: I think pollution and global warming are real but they are in conflict with industrial and economic prosperity
  127. Greg Van Zandt from Ottawa, Canada writes: This award is a joke, don't forget Yasser Arafat also won this award for his efforts to create peace in the Middle East.

    What does this have to do with peace?
  128. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: In the fuss about Gore, I forgot something, as I suspect others here have. I am very disappointed Sheila Watt-Cloutier did not share the prize.
  129. No No No Yes No from Canada writes: Wow...First the man creates the Internet, and now he's saved the world! Gore for supreme ruler of the Earth!
  130. Mike G from Ottawa, Canada writes: According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses'.

    Im afraid Al Gore has done none of these in the context of his award. Haven't one of the other nominees actually promoted fraternity between nations or were drivers of peace where there has been an actual, visible war?

    This award is simply too many degrees of separation from its original purpose: perhaps next year the Nobel Peace Prize can go to Proctor & Gamble Corp., for their work in making soap and detergents, which promote good hygiene, which promote public health, which mitigates disease, where disease is a destabilizer leading societies to war, and that therefore providing soaps mitigates war.
  131. A A from Canada writes: Nothing in the Nobel Peace Prize criteria states you have to be a scientist. Based on what the Nobel committee stated as to why he won this award, Gore got it fair and square!

    At least somebody gives a damn about the future of this planet!
  132. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: Yes, lets embrace Al Gores message of fear from Global Warming. Lets tax every company and drive whats left of our manufacturing to China, where all manufacturing runs off coal powered plants.

    Lets tax everybody, putting all the poor onto buses, while the rich pay a bit more, but will still drive around in their hummers. We can then totally create a two-class society.

    We can save the world.
  133. D B from Canada writes: It makes sense that the right-wingnuts wallow in denial with their heads in the tarsands about environmental problems. Even they have the sense to know that this is one issue on which they cannot blame liberals on whom they blame everything else from tax rates to their alcohol supplies. It's much easier than taking responsibility for their part in the problem.

    Have another drink, fellas. You can kill more brain cells and then make even more outrageous comments.
  134. Mark C from Ottawa, Canada writes: I lost all respect for the Nobel Peace prize when they awarded it to the terrorist Arafat. The prize is not about peace, it's about showmanship.
  135. Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: Bob Beal the point that I was trying to make is that alot of people feel that this has been politicized past the point of people making rational decisions anymore. The pronouncements of human caused global warming being definitively proven are false. Even the IPCC can only state to this day that the evidence is growing that AGW is a reality. Remember al the pronouncements from the scientific community about how devastating Y2K was going to be. It was pretty much unanimous yet nothing happened. All of the evidence coming out proves that there is global warming but the attribution of it to humans STILL HASN'T BEEN PROVEN. The fact that so many organizations want to jump to a conclusion that hasn't been proven is why many are skeptical. If everybody already believes it, in fact if you question the existence of AGW then your mocked, where is the objectivity there? Please show me the conclusive proof that AGW exists.
  136. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: Al Gore is today's updated Micheal Moore! Another Joke who always finds fault with others whilst being an even bigger hypocrit himself. Gore's diatribe is self-serving and designed for nothing more than the gaining of personal wealth and possible political aspirations. As a person who, when he was in government, had the opportunity to do something about this issue, he did squat! Period! He simply 'cottoned on' to Moore's hypocritical ploy of debassing others to make cold hard cash! His home uses more power than 6 normal homes - he's an illusionist is the true sense - speaks a good game while not actually doing anything but at the same time collecting bags of cash! Shame on the Nobel Committee for giving the peace prize to this phoney - there are much more deserving people out there - it shows how out of touch this organization has become! Gee maybe next year they'll award the peace price posthumously to our old pal Saddam!!!
  137. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: Bob Beal: I think it is another case of ideology vs. facts. Those on the side of ideology trumpet their ideology and discredit the opposition. The funny thing, is those on the side of ideology are winning and winning big! To change the subject slightly, no-one on the side of ideology seems to care that Dick Cheney and a host of others have gotten quite rich thanks to the war in Iraq. No cognitive dissonance there! Same thing with global warming. The oil companies are the rich ones but Al Gore is painted as a great force in his own right, seemingly capable of bringing them down to the ground. Right . . .
  138. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: See Jacob Aldermon's excellent post above. That about sums it up why Al Gore won this award - he is a visible catalyst for the global effort to combat what is likely the greatest threat to peaceful coexistence among nations.

    Al Gore may not be the best environmentalist.

    Al Gore is, however, the best communicator, who has done much to focus the attention of the public onto this critical issue. For that and that alone, he is wholly deserving of the Nobel.
  139. No No No Yes No from Canada writes: Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: Al Gore is today's updated Micheal Moore! Another Joke who always finds fault with others whilst being an even bigger hypocrit himself.

    Except Michael Moore doesn't have a company setup to profit from the paranoia he creates!

  140. Bruce Banner from Toronto, Canada writes: Does the Goracle get a prize for the cheesiest picture too? Expert eel: pure hilarity. R. Carriere from Maritimes: Good show, the BBC ran the same story yesterday as well. Once again the left has shown that it can employ fear, hysteria and social sanctions at least as effectively as the neo-cons (different faces of the same coin). T scot, you half-wit, the word 'Congratulations' is correctly spelled with a 'T' not a 'D'.
  141. R Fitz from Canada writes: Art Vandelai :

    Perfect summary!
  142. G G from Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes Did you read the entire article you provided the link for? 'Despite his finding of significant errors, Mr Justice Barton said many of the claims made by the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported 'by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].' Yes there were errors in the film but from reading the criticisms the errors are from choosing one inconclusive hypothesis over an other. Gee, that's never been done before to advance one's cause. Although from my understanding the melting of the snow cap on Kilimanjaro error is the one where the movie goes against the scientific concensus that it is more likely being caused by evaporation due to dryness of the surrounding air. So out of the many claims the documentary makes (can anyone tell me how many claims in total are in the doc) the judge found 8 are inconclusive because the documentary chooses one hypothesis over another where consensus hasn't been reached and 1 where the doc goes against consensus altogether. I wouldn't consider that a great farce being perpetrated on the people. But in today's blog chat society even one error in such a presentation is overblown more than that presentation itself for the sole purpose of trying to destroy the entire message. Truly sad. So Carriere I hope this gives you something to think about that the next time you post something that has to do with your belief that 911 was an inside job or that there is a massive undercover conspiracy going on for the merger of North America because of some superhighway plan designed to speed up trade between Canada, The US and Mexico.
  143. Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk: Your post is an outright fabrication of lies and mistruths. Canada did NOT in anyway have the most arduous task regarding Kyoto. Canada's targets were 6% below 1990' levels where most other OECD countries that were bound by it had targets of 8% below 1990s levels, including oil producing countries like Norway and this considering the fact that Canada has some of the highest per capita energy use on the planet. J Kay for one Europe has to reduce by 8% total. They distribute different amounts to different countries. Also the baseline year that they use was before the collapse of the Soviet Union. With this collapse of the wall their economies also collapsed giving all of Europe the benefit of the East German manufacturing collapse. Canada's oil sands are very energy intensive to extract therefore if we extract the same amount of oil as Norway we would have produced alot more GHG emissions just by the nature of our extraction process. As well if you look at the geographic distribution of Canada as well as our very strong up until now manufacturing sector you have conditions that are unique to us. Why is Iceland able to increase their GHG emissions by 10% and Australia 6%. The fact that environmentalists still trumpet this as a panacea that must be adhered to is what makes them lose credibility and makes alot of people skeptical.
  144. Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk: Your post is an outright fabrication of lies and mistruths. Canada did NOT in anyway have the most arduous task regarding Kyoto. Canada's targets were 6% below 1990' levels where most other OECD countries that were bound by it had targets of 8% below 1990s levels, including oil producing countries like Norway and this considering the fact that Canada has some of the highest per capita energy use on the planet. J Kay for one Europe has to reduce by 8% total. They distribute different amounts to different countries. Also the baseline year that they use was before the collapse of the Soviet Union. With this collapse of the wall their economies also collapsed giving all of Europe the benefit of the East German manufacturing collapse. Canada's oil sands are very energy intensive to extract therefore if we extract the same amount of oil as Norway we would have produced alot more GHG emissions just by the nature of our extraction process. As well if you look at the geographic distribution of Canada as well as our very strong up until now manufacturing sector you have conditions that are unique to us. Why is Iceland able to increase their GHG emissions by 10% and Australia 6%. The fact that environmentalists still trumpet this as a panacea that must be adhered to is what makes them lose credibility and makes alot of people skeptical.
  145. B Lam from Canada writes: Shouldn't the NPP go to Bush instead? He liberated the Iraqis, didn’t he?
  146. Dark Green from Grandma's Inn, Cuba writes: Spend a moment perusing most of the vicious anti-Gore posts above... then just imagine the nature and magnitude of those very interests that man has put, and continues to put into question. The quality of the man is made clear by the lack of it in his opponents, who keep insisting to show (sometimes 'demonstrate') they are no luminaries; only an embarrassment to all decent citizens of the world.
  147. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: QUESTION: How much money has Al Gore donated to the Greenhouse Effect problem?

    Has he given ALL of his money from the profits from his movie, which would be the ethical thing to do, if he believes in his own message.
  148. Robin M. from Canada writes: If Al Gore had not had the U.S. Presidential election stolen from him in 2000, the world be in better shape than it is now... Better environmental policies, better government, no war in Iraq, the U.S. would have been a beacon for other countries to emulate. As it stands today, the U.S. has lost its standing in the world as a defender of peace. It is trillions of $ in debt under a terribly misguided President who shunned anything to do with environmental policy, instead touts war, the military and the oil companies, while the middle class disappears in that country.

    For all those who ridicule Al Gore, at least he is trying to do good for the people of this small planet. He is not perfect, but he is a far far better humanbeing than many who hold leadership in the U.S. and the deniers in our own government.
  149. Gilgamesh the First from Canada writes: Okay. Don't give the peace pize to Al Gore. There are some people on this board who would probably cheer if it were given to Bush because at least his murderous wars and his reliance on fossil fuels have shown us the very real importance of World Peace. See, Bush has done more than anyone else to make us realize how valued peace really is. Rumor: Bush and his buddies are buying up lots of cheap land on Baffin and Ellsmere Islands for future tourism due to climate warming not knowing that those Islands will be thirty feet under water in 25 years.... Al Gore and Stephen Lewis are remarkable individuals. We need more people like them.... As for Global warming. Some people still have their head in the sand sipping oil cocktails
  150. Honey Smith from Calgary, Canada writes:
    Wasn't he the hypocrite who told others to save electricity but was using 10 times the average American's usage in his own homes?

    It's funny how the liberal media dropped that story rather quickly and now all these idiots think he's God.
  151. Nickstar One from Canada writes: Goracle fans, lest ye forget.
    Al, the environment's pal and 'carbon credit' capo, could not even win his own state in the presidential election and all the 'hanging chads' in the world cannot change this fact.
    As for his 'Incovenient Truth', unbiased judicial review in the UK(not the completely biased frauds ensconced at the UN's IPCC or the UN's WHO) has pointed out that the Goracle's Academy Award winning 'political indoctrination' film contains no less than 11 glaring errors of fact effectively rendering this film an 'Incovenient Truth' about Al's fraudulent self-promotion as 'Al the Environment's Pal' and
    the Brinks truckloads of 'global warming cash' coming his way.
    So the question becomes 'do ex-politicians lie and exploit for personal power and personal gain'?
    That is, the true 'Incovenient Truth'!
  152. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Dan: I can't conclusively prove that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Nor can I prove human-caused global warming. I do not have the credentials to even begin. What I can and do say is that those who have done the work and know what they are talking about, including the organizations I listed above, very strongly support the basics of Al Gore's film, as the British judge noted in his decision.

    Y2K is a red herring in this debate. The Y2K threat was real. Nothing happened because people realized it soon enough and fixed it. I had to fix it myself. In the early 1990s, I designed a computer program and stupidly forgot to take 2000 into account. In those days, most of us were working with fixed-field dBase sorting programs. They were not easy to change, and there was all sorts of possibility for error. If I had made a mistake, my data would have been screwed up but no airplanes would have fallen out of the sky. But I can image what large organizations and sensitive data systems went through during the fix. With modern computer systems and extremely flexible programs, people today have trouble imagining that.
  153. Roland Neissinger from Latteville, Canada writes: He got the Nobel Price to spread the awareness of manmade effects on the climate, not for being a scientist.
    With to many people living on the run and from paycheque to paycheque, stressed trough more and more workload done by less and less bodies, it takes a public campaign of Gore proportions to make people aware of their decaying, overheating surroundings while they struggle to make ends meet.
    Also quite a few scientist are known to toot only the horn of the corporations which cut their paycheque, and might sometimes a bit biased in their findings.
    On the other hand lets not forget solar cycles and hot and cold climate periods of the past, all we really do is accellerating the swing of climatic change to the next big stabilizing period, which well exceeds lifespans of any human more than many thousands of years over.....
    Thanks to the wake-up calls from people like Al Gore we still get some time to adjust our lifestyle and future economic and personal expectations to the new reality.
    All that said, I don't think Gore is a fake, I think he means what he says.
  154. P Jones from NB, Canada writes: Here is my question to all those who have fallen for the man-made global warming mantra and see fit to criticize those who haven't. The earth went through an ice age. Was man responsible for the subsequent thaw?

    Does man contribute to pollution? Yes. However, this whole man-made global warming issue has been politicized and blown way out of context. Enough already, lets look at REAL corrective measures. The Kyoto Protocol is a scam.
  155. Bill M from Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk: Your post is an outright fabrication of lies and mistruths. Canada did NOT in anyway have the most arduous task regarding Kyoto. Canada's targets were 6% below 1990' levels where most other OECD countries that were bound by it had targets of 8% below 1990s levels, including oil producing countries like Norway and this considering the fact that Canada has some of the highest per capita energy use on the planet.

    And Norway, which is less than the size of Nova Scotia has seen it's population grow by less than 500,000 since 1990, while Canda's population gas grown by 5 million. Next argument.
  156. David Winch from France writes: this just in: Supreme Court has taken away Gore's Nobel and awarded it to Bush ...
  157. Cyrus Ofpersia from Canada writes: GG, if you have followed R. Carriere's thoughtful and courteous contributions over the months, you owe him a response minus the ad hominem tone of yours.

    As for the award to Gore, it's no surprise. The Peace Prize frequently goes to politically correct wave riders. As to the evidence for global warming, or against it, I am unconvinced of the film's basic thesis, given the arguments from reputable scientists in favour of other explanations for the climate in recent decades. But I'm willing to be persuaded either way, given solid evidence.

    Does anyone have an opinion on the opinions expressed in the links to other research posted above?
  158. John K. from Coast Salish Territory, Canada writes: The pope won't be happy.
  159. Carl C. from Montreal, Canada writes: Even though his documentary contained some small flaws, as attested by a judge in the US recently, a nobel peace prize for the IPCC and Gore is a CLEAR signal to the world that they are warning us of the dire consequences of Climate change. I am VERY VERY happy that these were the people chosen. And for the Gore bashers above, well you are exaclty the kind of people who would gladly trade a buck for your grandmother.. So shame and you. At least I am certain you are in the minority, so thats the good news.
  160. Bubbles McBubbles from Trawna, Canada writes: Joe Wallach from Russell, Ontario, Canada writes: Gore's being co-awarded the Nobel Peace Prize completely demeans this formerly prestigious award!

    I guess you missed the times when they gave it to Arafat and Kissinger.
  161. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes:

    Al Gore VS George Bush:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

    Who is the hypocrite?
  162. R Fitz from Canada writes: - Gore is giving his 1.5 million award from the NPP to his educational organization to combat global change.
    - And the profits from the documentary & book go to Environmental Education Campagins
    - PS - these orgnaizations are NOT FOR PROFIT!
  163. G P from Ottawa, Canada writes: The real question is, are YOU Gore-compliant?

    I'm really not sure what to make of him. I get the sense people are educating themselves about the various elements of climate activities, at least. Which, in the context of An Inconvenient Truth being incredibly simplistic and militantly pre-emptive in it's purpose, is a good thing.
  164. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: No No No Yes No from Canada writes: Except Michael Moore doesn't have a company setup to profit from the paranoia he creates!

    I do believe that Micheal Moore has a number of companies set up for his 'business' so I am not sure what you mean? I can assure you that Moore and Gore both profit generously from their phoney 'journalism'- they both just recognised that there's a bunch of lib-left , anti-establishment wingnuts out there who are stupid enough to pay mega-bucks to hear them blather on with their meaningless diatribes that are set up for one purpose - to line their pockets! Moore has now been exposed, by a nifty little Canadian produced DVD, for the heartless hypocrit that he is, and Gore will soon disappear from the limelight once he fails in his Presidency bid but he knows he can still sit back and live of the gazillions he has made from his little enviro-scam and the idoiots he suckered in to support him! You can just see that from some of the lovefest posts on here!
  165. Peter Walker from Calgary, Canada writes: It's a sad day for the Nobel Prize people, when the Peace Prize means that he with the most money wins!!

    Of course he can explain away Global Warming, his house is one of the biggest polluters on earth!
  166. Grey Rabbit from Canada writes: Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: ' Grey Rabbit from Canada writes: What a scam
    This puts a huge hole in the credibility of Nobel peace prize'

    What are you talking about? I value my Nobel Peace prize. I had to dig it out from the bottom of the box of my Corn Flakes this morning. Looks great. I'll hang it in my garage.

    Yeah Frank I have mine hanging proudly at my mansion over there in my garage beside my shiny Hummer. I used the prize money to pay for my gas and electric bills
  167. Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: Bob Beal I also support the basics of Al Gore's film The basics of his film with regards to global warming existing only. In fact when you go and read all of the analysis and the summaries AGW still hasn't been proven in fact it really isn't even close yet. The fact that people will still claim this to be the case when it isn't flies in the face of the scientific process. The fact that this happens is why many are skeptical. The Y2K example is specious I agree however maybe a more apt example is the police department who believes someone is guilty and now all evidence that supports this view will be accepted and all evidence not supporting this view will be discounted. NOw with that said I still do my part to try and reduce pollution and be a good corporate citizen. I do believe we must do our part to ensure a healthy environment going forward but this must entail a global consensus that requires a similar level of sacrifice from every member of the global community. We should not enter into any treaty that doesn't achieve uniform levels of commitment and sacrifice.
  168. A. K. from Edmonton, Canada writes: The Noble Foundation must have done it background checks and had debates before making this award. There is Al Gore and then there is the UNFCCC! They must have found good reasons for honouring these two .....

    .... otherwise we would have seen the prize shared by Stevie Harper and his pony Braid.
  169. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: And Gores 10,000 sq foot home? Yes, his 10,000 sq foot home. What in the world do you do with a 10,0000 sq foot home. This is like 100 times my little 1000 sq foot bungalow. Al Gores home is 100 times larger than a regular bungalow. Not very environmentally friendly when using 12 times the energy of the average home.

    I guess lots of wall space to hang his little Nobel Prize.
  170. Canadian Patriot from United States writes: This is total garbage. Just like Bush stole the election from Gore in 2000, Gore has stolen the NPP from Bush in 2007. Bush has done more to establish peace in this world than any other living person in the past 50 years!

    Anyway. I like how Bush's stance on Kyoto is that implementing it will hurt the US economy. So how's the economy doing there now George? Without Kyoto?
  171. Canadian Patriot from United States writes: Neo-Conservatism will destroy us. Thank you Cheney (the real US president), Bush (the puppet), and Harper (our own little puppet). So what are you guys planning on doing with all your money in hell?
  172. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: Wow, who knew that the cognitive dissonance created by merely entertaining the idea that human beings may be adversely affecting the environment would be sufficient to stir up this degree of anti-Gore ranting?

    On the one hand you've got people slagging his lack of scientific credentials and 'logic', and on the other you've got people making sound-bitish jibes about his supposed hypocrisy and childishly rehashing the man's claims, out of context naturally, about the 'internet' (and which many seem to have confused with more the recent claims made by the Republican Senator Stevens).

    Ignorance reigns.
  173. Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: Nice. Seems higher learning and elevaded thought can be recognized.

    Earth is warming, concensus within scientific community AGW is culprit.

    No one will act. Fascists don't want any handicaps to profits.
  174. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Stude said 'so many are expressing their anti-harper sentiments by electing majority anti-harper governments in ON and NL for example'.

    Yup...ON elected a liar and NL elected a blowhard.....looks like this Peace Prize train is right on track.
  175. Nickstar One from Canada writes: Caption under 'Al the Environmental Pal' picture:
    Former U.S. President Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize along with a UN body on climate change.

    Keep this up and the 'Grope and Flail' monicker will stick!
  176. F/A josquin from van, Canada writes: Deny deny deny. We are masters at that, individually and collectively.

    what a pathetic animal we are.

    We should have a 'pathetic human' award. There are certainly a few contenders on this blog today.

    I nominate 'Honey Smith'
  177. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: And Gores 10,000 sq foot home? Yes, his 10,000 sq foot home. What in the world do you do with a 10,0000 sq foot home. This is like 100 times my little 1000 sq foot bungalow. Al Gores home is 100 times larger than a regular bungalow. Not very environmentally friendly when using 12 times the energy of the average home.I guess lots of wall space to hang his little Nobel Prize.

    Actually Frank his house is only 10 times the size of yours - not being critical of you - I just know the libbie wingnuts here would love to point that out! However, your overall idea is correct - Gore has a huge house that uses up to 10-12 times more power than the average US home - however, I have heard that he is insulating it with US greenbacks by covering his walls with them - he's made so much from his little scam he can afford to do that - but he is helping the environmemt!
  178. G G from Canada writes: Cyrus Ofpersia from Canada writes: GG, if you have followed R. Carriere's thoughtful and courteous contributions over the months, you owe him a response minus the ad hominem tone of yours.

    What exactly was ad hominem about my post? He choose 1 paragraph from an article writen about the judges decision, he was being just as selective as some are saying Gore is. My post was curteous and respectful. I simply asked him to think about the fact in today's information age it easy for a bunch of people to attack the entire message and discredit the messenger when something can't be as easily proven as let's say 1 1 = 2.
  179. Chris H from To, Canada writes: I haven't seen an 'Inconvenient Truth' but I do know that since it was released 'environmentalism' and climate change have become hot issues again - and if that helps to bring about advancements in energy conservation and alternative fuels then - the project was worthwhile - whatever factual inconsistencies might exist in it.

    An accomplishment is an accomplishment and Al Gore refocussed North American interest on this issue - were there others working harder and more diligently on it all along - of course there were - but nevertheless this is his contribution.

    Although I respect Al Gore for what he has done and is doing - I would also question whether or not he is the 'most deserving' for the Noble Peace prize. For example: what about the doctors and nurses who risk their lives and personal safety in places like Iraq and Sudan, teachers bringing literacy to children in underdeveloped nations ... the list likely goes on. Unfortunately - the Noble Peace Prize has become politicized and I doubt it will be awarded to anyone anonymous anytime soon.

    At the end of the day - I think Al Gore is not the most deserving and not the least deserving of recipients - so overall a so-so result.
  180. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes:

    Al Gores Inconvenient Truth - Part 2:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
  181. G G from Canada writes: I guess this Globe doesn't have the advanced technology to accept a plus sign in posts, anyway for those unclear it's: 1 plus 1 = 2
  182. John K. from Coast Salish Territory, Canada writes: Only complete fools can imagine that we can pump these massive amounts of poisonous, toxic chemicals into the environment without effecting the air, the water, the earth itself. neo-cons are too busy salivating over the profits they make from their investments in evil, greedy corporations to get their heads out of their arses long enough to see past their own noses. Try sitting in your garage with the door closed and your car running for a few minutes and tell me how clean the air is. Then imagine millions of cars pumping out these same toxic emmissions. It's not about whether Al Gore is perfect or not, but whther our actions as humans are affecting life on earth. To only the most ignorant and in-denial, we most certainly are. The proof is all around you, if you have the courage to see it for what it is. The earth isn't just here for a few self-chosen humans to pillage it/ live unsustainably in an orgy of ignorance and indifference. The challenge is for people to live from their hearts and see the world for what it is - a living, breathing organism that has created the most diverse, complex and self-sustaining living system imaginable. There is room for everyone, and enough for all if we choose to live respectfully and actually show concern for others, including our non-human neighbours. neo-cons adamantly follow the path of selfish explotation and the plundering of this planet, which fits in nicely with the values of corporations and catholics alike. Sorry neo-cons, you can't buy or deny your way out of being accountable for your actions - not for much longer.
  183. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: Gee! Let's see - a failed, hypocritical and 'useless' politican and a committee from the corrupt 'useless' UN organization won the Nobel Peace Prize!
    I wonder that says about the Nobel Committee?
  184. G G from Canada writes: Chris H from To

    Fair and honest post, so rare in these woods.
  185. c f from Ontario, Canada writes: It's funny when people say 'but science tells us the earth has experienced many natural warming and cooling cycles', but when the SAME scientists also say that the current peculiar cycle is likely due to man's influence, they call the science a religion.

    Good on Al Gore. While der monkey feurer has destroyed the state of his own nation, Gore has won an academy award and a nobel peace prize. Losing the presidential election was probably one of the best things to happen to him.
  186. A. Chinaman from Canada writes: A lot of scientists spent years to study and prove climate changes. They were rejected by their peers and society. Finally they prove they are right, and their voices are still within the scientific communities. Al Gore, a self promoted loser, got that banner, and used his celebrity to promote climate change. Surely credit should be given to him for the promation work, but NOT Nobel! He knows nothing about the science of climate change and he is NOT original. He is not a good example to fight climate change also. Look at his life style - with all SUV in his glass mansion. How much gasoline are used to feed all his SUVs and heating up (or cooling down) his mansion. I suspect the award to him is to try to promote climate change among the world leaders!
  187. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Dan: My point continues to be that the people who have done the work disagree with your conclusion that a 'proof' 'isn't even close yet.'

    In their booklet, 'Understanding and Responding to Climate Change,' the U.S. Academies of Sciences says: 'In the judgement of most climate scientists, Earth's warming in recent decades has been caused by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.'

    In anything, there is always room for doubt. But in this one, the experts think there is not much room for doubt. I would rather bet that the experts are correct rather than the doubters. The fact is that if the experts are correct, action should be taken not just by us as individuals but by states. Whether Kyoto is the best, or even a good, way of doing that is another thing.
  188. Mark McGrath from Canada writes: Alot of people are mentioning albert' home energy usage so i thought I would post a link.
    http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
  189. Megan Platts from Hamilton, Canada writes: Wow, so many Gore haters! Raising public awareness about an important issue sure isn't as laudible a service as it once was...no wonder political discourse on this continent is dead.
  190. Emperor Joshua Norton from Toronto, Canada writes: Chris H - Doctors Without Borders won the Peace Prize a few years ago.
  191. R D from Canada writes: Rob R - great summary. This prize has lost all its lusture with the award going to a politician who at best exagerated his claims and at worst lied. He flies around the world charging mega bucks to speak on the subject, not to mention royalties on his movie and books. Meanwhile real scientists who actually undertsand the issue, work in the background for peanuts by comparison. What a joke.
  192. Nickstar One from Canada writes: '.....And the profits from the documentary & book go to Environmental Education Campagins
    - PS - these orgnaizations are NOT FOR PROFIT!.......'

    Really?
    These 'NOT FOR PROFIT' orgs become 'NGOs'and the people who run them suddenly find themselves transformed from, low or no pay, 'volunteers' to 'major 6 figure salary' types.
    NFP, in a pig's ear!.
  193. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: A. Chinaman from Canada writes:He is not a good example to fight climate change also. Look at his life style - with all SUV in his glass mansion. How much gasoline are used to feed all his SUVs and heating up (or cooling down) his mansion.

    *You hit the 'nail right on the head' my friend - the lib-left media and wingnuts have done nothing but praise this phoney while constantly ignoring his hypocrisy, MONEY-GRABBING and lifestyle - BUT YOU SEE TO ACTUALLY TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS SCAM ARTIST WOULD REALLY BE 'AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH!!!!' *
  194. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/28/olbermann-on-gores-energy-use-setting-the-record-straight/
  195. Rob M from Regina, Canada writes: How the hell does this movie warrant the Peace prize? While entertaining and moderately informative it does not elevate the 'presenter' of a slide show into the august company of people like Nelson Mandella, Lester B. Pearson and Mother Teresa!

    I took the bus to work this morning instead of driving and only flushed once even though there was a straggler this morning... does that count?
  196. R Fitz from Canada writes: To all you who do not believe in global warming: Is it Ok to pollute?

    If your answer is no, then you have at least have to admit that Gore & the IPCC has helped bring about a global awareness on the importance of expanding industrially while not exploding the earth… agree?

    Oh wait - most of you would never agree that Gore has done anything good for fear of being kicked out of the nay-sayers group… whaver!
  197. Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: John K. from Coast Salish Territory, Canada writes: alot of inflammatory rhetoric aimed at individuals that dare question something. You assume that this questioning has a correlation with selfish acts and horrible incidents of environmental degradation. Must be nice to be so morally and ethically superior to all of us 'neo-cons' who dare question this mantra of AGW. You are another reason why I question AGW. You generalizing alarmist.
  198. j adams from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Who cares who the Nobel committee gives a prize to? Take a deep breath people.
  199. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: I'd like to create a NOT-FOR-PROFIT organization to benefit the environment. I'll need a salary of only $500,000 per year. I'll need a 100,000 sq foot mansion so I can have my office at home.

    Who is up first to contribute to my NON-PROFIT organization?

    Just remember, together, we can fix the world.
  200. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: Rob M from Regina, Canada writes: How the hell does this movie warrant the Peace prize? While entertaining and moderately informative it does not elevate the 'presenter' of a slide show into the august company of people like Nelson Mandella, Lester B. Pearson and Mother Teresa?

    *It doesn't but it did elevate him to the same Nobel Peace Prize level as another Scam Artist - the late departed YASSER!*
  201. Brian C from Canada writes: Rob R, I agree. The Nobel Peace Prize has lost its original intent, and the committee responsible for its on-going management is prostituting itself to the highest bidder.

    Whether you agree with humankind's effect on climate change, Gore is just a mouthpiece. Why not give Angelina Jolie a Nobel? At least she's doing something, not just talking, and she's a lot better looking. Surely the Nobel Committee can see the benefit to their organization by having her on the list of recipients.
  202. Alyssa Watson from Canada writes: Would of liked to see Canada's Watt-Cloutier win it would of showed the little person can make a diffrence. Al Gore's win was no suprise. Maybe Michael Moore will win next year.
  203. Chris H from To, Canada writes: Emperor Joshua, You are correct. I should have mentioned them. That was certainly a pleasant surprise.
  204. F/A josquin from van, Canada writes: worth repeating this fellow's posting C F says, 'It's funny when people say 'but science tells us the earth has experienced many natural warming and cooling cycles', but when the SAME scientists also say that the current peculiar cycle is likely due to man's influence, they call the science a religion.'

    Someone said the other day, 'an old saying, liberals believe what they see, and conservatives see what they believe'

    I don't like pithy little sayings, but this one rings with a certain truth.
  205. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: Brian C from Canada writes: Rob R, I agree. The Nobel Peace Prize has lost its original intent, and the committee responsible for its on-going management is prostituting itself to the highest bidder. Whether you agree with humankind's effect on climate change, Gore is just a mouthpiece. Why not give Angelina Jolie a Nobel? At least she's doing something, not just talking, and she's a lot better looking. Surely the Nobel Committee can see the benefit to their organization by having her on the list of recipients.

    *Brian, I agree with you 100% about Angelina - plus she makes better movies, although I do hear that Al will look stunning in the gown that he has chosen to wear for the presentaion of the Nobel Peace Prize! - LOL *
  206. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: Rob M the movie won the 2007 Academy Award for Documentary Feature. Al Gore won the Nobel for his work in spreading the message about an issue that if uncorrected would kill and dislocate more people than any war in human history. Good for Al.
  207. B to the A to the R to the T from Canada writes: Rob M the movie won the 2007 Academy Award for Documentary Feature. Al Gore won the Nobel for his work in spreading the message about an issue that if uncorrected would kill and dislocate more people than any war in human history. Good for Al.
  208. Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: Bob I understand your points completely and sometimes marvel at the seemly arrogance of my stance but I also can't just shake this feeling that something aint right about this process and conclusions. My feeling is that alot of this debate has been hijacked by people with an agenda not entirely focussed on this problem only. That alot of the solutions are really being designed to combat global warming but to push through spefic social ideals. At the same time I firmly believe that alot of this debate is superfulous(?) anyway. Regardless of the cause I still am behind a global treaty to reduce green house gas emissions and pollution and in a meaningfull way as well.
  209. Brian C from Canada writes: Rob R, I just hope his wife tells him to shave his legs.
  210. Patrick Rioux from Ottawa, Canada writes: This is the greatest Nobel joke since Arafat won the Peace Prize. Next the chemistry prize goes to the discoverer of chemtrails, the medicine prize is collected by Philip Morris, the physics prize by the school of Intelligent Design and the literature prize is scooped by Chomsky.
  211. Interested Observer from Vancouver, Canada writes: GG if only it were that simple to connect the dots 1 plus 1 plus 1 = AGW scientists can do it but they have the expertise.

    It would be easier to connect the dots, like say, a corrupt American administration (1) whose leader worked decades to exploit crude oil deposits in a foreign sovereign country for their own benefit (1) and after being stonewalled (1), create incredulous phony hyperbole and along with their fearmongering (1) [terror scroll on bottom of TV] fool their fearful populous into waging a 'just' war (1). That same corrupt US imposes a puppet regime (1) after an annihilating shock and awe aerial campaign that indiscriminately killed moms and children alike in two sovereign nations - then set up an obvious puppet regime (1), then through the UN, 'invite' Canadian Forces (1) to enforce their rules of hegemony (1).

    More like 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 but still a simple linear equation.
  212. G R from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: How can anyone deny the frightening aspect of climate change that resulted from man's doing? Why do these people that do deny this say it is just a cycle.....come on people, drop your political beliefs and please just look at the facts. It is so so obvious and we are in so so much trouble if we don't turn this sinking ship around very very fast!
  213. My sentiments exactly from Canada writes: I have a teenager, who, prior to seeing an Inconvenient Truth, didn't believe in personal responsibility in caring for the environment, and now does. Al Gore's efforts have converted some open minds towards communal environmental stewardship, and for that, he deserves the highest praise. Those deniers on this board should ask their children, or probably more accurately, their grandchildren since they seem to be cranky old dinosaurs, what they think of the prospects of global climate change and of our individual responsibility as a result. Generations to come will vilify these same deniers who shoot the messengers and carry on their same behaviours.
  214. Scott H from United States writes: I forgot where I saw this before. Maybe it was someone on here:

    'Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, but he did invent Global Warming.'

    No matter your opinion of the matter, lighten up and admit that its freakin hilarious :O
  215. B to the A to the R to the T from Canada writes: Rob R you sit and criticize Gore. When was the last time you devoted some energy to making this planet or your community a better place to live?
  216. R Fitz from Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk

    THANK YOU for agreeing that we at least need to come to a consensus that change needs to happen to help protect the earth. Regardless if you believe in the full effects of global warming or how to correct it, it is refreshing to hear that opponents of Gore still believe we need to take corrective action... But I’m at least happy to see there is some consensus that we are heading down a bad path – whether it’s simply polluting our local water, air, etc and we need to stop that… I think many people who do agree with Global Warming are concerned that those that disagree don’t believe we are polluting the earth (that’s my take on it) and you last post shows that at least you agree that we need to take corrective action!

    My concern still remains that we will never come to an agreeable corrective measure….
  217. Arec Bardwin from Canada writes: (Q) How does Gore sleep at night?

    (A) On a pile of carbon credit money beside his nobel peace prize in his super-massive mansion consuming 22 times the national average in electricity consumption.
    He's like a world hero man. We should all try to achieve his energy wasting ways.
  218. axxie fox from ottawa, Canada writes: Al Gore oh so Holliwood, but he shares a Nobel Peace Prize, let him savour it. He made a movie with money from the oil patch out on his land. The movie did wake up people, but not enough to make changes in their lifestyle and I think that's a big issue. Maybe our Prime Minister should team up with David Suzuki, at least Harper would understand that Environment Canada cannot operate with less $$.
  219. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: I look forward to the Greenhouse Effect. Canada will benefit. With no more winters we can then easily reduce our CO2 footprint since heating homes will no longer be required.

    Ahhhh, the days of no more snow shoveling. No more sliding through icy intersections.... I can only dream for now....
  220. Kim Huynh from Canada writes: More to the point, this is the conclusion from the latest Leader column from the Economist: Mr Gore has his detractors. His film is propaganda rather than documentary. A British judge this week ruled that it should not be shown to schoolchildren without a health warning, because there were several claims in it that were wrong: the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica are not, for instance, expected to melt “in the near future”, but in millennia. On this issue, pick your side, but remember not to jump in the wagon before you gather all the facts available, not just the political correctness of the day.
  221. Chris H from To, Canada writes: Patrick Rioux from Ottawa: I agree it was a joke to give the NPP to Arafat - however - an even bigger joke was awarding it to the UN body responsible for investigating nuclear proliferation (cannot remember the exact name of the committee) last year.
  222. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: B to the A to the R to the T from Canada writes: Rob R you sit and criticize Gore. When was the last time you devoted some energy to making this planet or your community a better place to live?

    Actually - I have made my house more energy efficent by improving the insulation, I constantly repair gaps in caulking, I installed a new high efficency-lower emission furnace, we have bought new energy efficent appliances, use the new light bulbs and have downsized from a V6 BMW to a smaller more gas efficent 4 cylinder car, as has my daughter. We also got rid of our gas lawn mower and bought a more enviro-efficent battery power model. We segregate all our waste as required by the municipality and compost garden waste! It may not be ear-shatering but its a d*mned sight more that your money-grubbing hero has done with his SUV driving, and 10 times energy wasting house! By the way what have you done for the environment since we are on the subject!
  223. J L from Canada writes: I congratulate Mr Gore on receiving this prestigious award,There is no question that global warming is a serious problem.my differences with Mr Gore and many others is not so much on the Issue itself but how one goes about solving the problem.As I've said on a number of occasion until such time as all the MAJOR POLLUTERS ARE DOING THEIR PART IN REDUCTING THEIR OMISSION.Canada should not be spending BILLIONS of our tax dollars and risk the potential collapse of our economy on a flawed protocol.Why is it flawed you many ask?Because country's such as the US,China,Russia,India.Brazil to name a few are NOT making any reasonable effort,or attempt for that matter to either reduce or meet the Kyoto Targets.Would anybody like to guess the populations of the above countries? and the amount of pollutants these countries are putting into our(worlds) atmosphere on a daily basis.ITS STAGGERING!Lets get these polluters doing their part before Canada jumps into a empty pool, head first,then and only then should Canada make any effort to meet the Kyoto Targets and join ALL the nations of the world in a united front to reduce substantially the amount of pollutants in the WORLDS atmosphere.before it's too late.
  224. Patrick Rioux from Ottawa, Canada writes: GR from Thunder Bay: You have been duped and are living in a State of Fear. The Great Global Warming Swindle is claiming more than one sucker a minute but is finally coming under serious scrutiny more and more every day. Look at the facts and stop having everything processed for you.
  225. Beatriz Perez-Sanchez from Toronto, Canada writes: The Nobel Peace Prize is now meaningless. Al Gore has to be one of the biggest snake oil salesmen of all time. I feel sorry for the millions who have been duped by this fat-assed, self-serving charlatan.
  226. Chris H from To, Canada writes: How does everyone on this site know how much energy Al Gore's household consumes or what kind of vehicle he drives?
  227. Wasabi Jones from Canada writes: Congratulations Al Gore! You now share the glory with former Nobel peace prize winners such as Yasser Arafat. A phony award for a phony man and his phony cause.
  228. S Lucht from Canada writes: Gore won this prize because sensationalism appeals to the ignorant, not because he's a great scientist or humanitarian. No one with a pulse would deny that we need to pay attention to the environment, but Gore's 'the sky is falling' doctrine does a disservice to the debate. Where are the rational voices we need?
  229. Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: R Fitz I think one of the more frustrating aspects of this debate has been the way one group characterizes the other. From 'nega-tories' to 'kool-aid drinking sheep' both sides can be extremely derisive of the other. If we actually have a calm rational debate we would realize that most of us have the same goal in mind. How we will achieve that is the most important aspect of it.

    I share the same fears as you about reaching an effective agreeable corrective action to this problem. The world is generally altruistic only in words. When it comes to making global decisions almost every country on the planet tends to make nationalistic priorities number 1 and their global commitment number 2. Again another reason why debate over gov't policies and international treaties are more of a distraction than a help. We as individuals need to ensure we do what we can to help sad as it may seem.

    Peace out and have a great weekend.
  230. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Dan: I suspect you and I can agree on a good number of important things.

    I have never been part of the environmentalist movement. However, I have always been a conservator. I suppose part of that comes from my life-long love of the outdoors.

    In recent years, particularly in the West, I have observed what I think are effects of global warming. This is especially obvious in decreasing water levels that no-one is paying enough attention to here. Since the beginning of agricultural settlement, watersheds have been degraded. But global warming now seems to be an additional serious factor in what is happening. There is simply no water at all in many places where there was water 20 years ago, even though agriculture has not expanded in those places, and there is no likelihood the water will return. I know this is purely impressionistic on my part, but it is a very strong impression.
  231. Vic Vegas from Vancouver, Canada writes: I'm glad science does not stand in the way of Nobel prize elegibility. As long as Greenpeace endorses it, it must be OK. That prize is now officialy a joke, and is likely the cause of global warming.
  232. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Once again, I'll ask a simple question and hope for a response 'J Luft':

    I'm very pleased 'J Luft' to see you here because we've been unfortunate in having the G&M close comments before you could answer me, which I'd like to hear now, if you please: 'I've asked before and got no answer so I'll try again: J Luft, are you related to Barry Luft, the Vice-President Drilling for 'Blackwatch Energy Trust' or to Inge Luft, AFE Analyst, Capital at 'Harvest Energy Trust', both based in Calgary? If so, that might explain your mindless devotion to denying the reality of anthropogenic warming.'
  233. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: I admire the Nobel thinkers for awarding this prize to HE who has given us the most significant PowerPointPresentation known to MAN. HE has single-handedly deciphered complex mathematics of global climatology unlike anyone else and, SIMULTANEOUSLY, brought forth world PEACE to a planet divided by CARBON divisions. May we all celebrate the GORACLE today and pray that Hillary's headache today develops into a migraine.
  234. J Kay from Canada writes: Dan Gabeldonk: It is not Europe that has to reduce emissions by 8% as a whole but the EU-15 on average, which does not include Russia or any ex-Soviet country save East Germany and given that Germany has reduced emissions over 1990 levels by 17.6%, I think they're well ahead of the game, considering their economy has expanded since then.
    The argument (not necessarily yours) that Canada's economy has expanded but Europe's has not is false. Using OECD statistics, Canada's economy from 1990 - 2004 grew by 2.6% real gdp annualised with CO2 annualised emissions growth of 1.31%. The UK whose economy grew only slightly slower at 2.35% had emissions reductions of -0.21%. France whose economy grew at a more modest 1.95% annualised has had emissions growth of only 0.52% and Norways economy for Tim Rutkevitch has far outgrown Canada's at 3.15% GDP growth. If one looks at growth in emissions for each 1% of annualised GDP growth then the following countries are doing better than us: Germany, Sweden, France, UK, Iceland, Denmark, Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, US, and the Netherlands. Looking at the numbers this way normalises them for GDP growth such that Tim's comments are rendered irrelevent.
  235. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: Nobel prize for peace? That's a load of BS. Sorry but being an advocate for global warming has nothing to do with peace on earth.

    They gave it to him for PC reasons. Glad to hear he is donating money to charity.
  236. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: B to the A to the R to the T from Canada writes: Rob R you sit and criticize Gore. When was the last time you devoted some energy to making this planet or your community a better place to live?

    *I gave you my answer - I am still waiting on yours*
  237. Leon Russell from Gatineau, Canada writes: John K. from Coast Salish Territory, Canada writes: 'Only complete fools can imagine that we can pump these massive amounts of poisonous, toxic chemicals into the environment without effecting the air, the water, the earth itself.' This is the crux of it (great post by the way!). Whether there is any evidence or not, the idea that we can cut down forests and pump tons of gases into the atmosphere without consequence is ridiculous.
  238. Pat Simonson from Winnipeg, Canada writes: What a CROCK.
  239. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I see that innumeracy still reigns here. Illiteracy comes a close second. Political polarization also reigns.

    The science is in. Al Gore has done a sound-bite presentation to get your attention. You need to dig - he deserved this award.

    Propose a better understanding and we'll listen but otherwise your verbal methane is just contributing to the problem.
  240. Paul, Bytown, from Canada writes: If I were a Goracle follower, I'd say that Al Gore has 'played on our fears' with his humans are bad, Earth is good theme. But, since I'm not, I can clearly see that his shtick was and is nothing but a ruse to further his own investment enterprise of selling carbon credit offsets. It's not too unlike a snake oil salesman who would tell you that 'if you trust me, I'll make it all better.' Of course, while you are looking toward the cure that is not and will never be, Al Gore is fleecing you of your livelihoods and your hard earned money. What used to be a Nobel award, has once again been bestowed upon a charlatan. The committee has eagerly given credence to a flawed and highly political cause (global warming) that will trick hundreds of millions into a willingness to give up everything they have for a perfectly natural cyclical phenomenon. If there's a sucker born everyday, there are millions to be made off those willing to buy very expensive but worthless credits. By the time you figure out that you have been cheated of your money and a richer fuller existence, you will be too old, too poor, and too gray to complain . . . not to mention too embarrassed for being so gullible. Meanwhile, those who will have enriched themselves at your expense will be laughing amongst themselves as they lift Champagne glasses in the air filled with the smell of the worlds finest cigars. Will mankind ever survive his own stupidity? . . . . it's becoming harder to say with each passing day.
  241. Liberals Steal from Canada writes: Write down a list of five people who ended wars and thus brought actual peace to actual people who were without it.

    I'd put say:

    Churchill
    Roosevelt
    Truman
    Reagan
    Thatcher.

    You can pick your own list.
    Now look for their names in the nobel peace prize list.

    Not one.

    Instead you get people like:
    Arafat - killer
    Carter - appeaser of cold-war communist warriors and arab terrorists
    Gore - loser fool who reads movie cue cards while a stunning hypocrite and was VP while Al Quaeda built up unopposed.

    Weird, weird, weird.
  242. Adriana Agathagelos from Toronto, Canada writes: To all those that criticize efforts to advance our planet:
    What do you contribute?
  243. J Kay from Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk: The only people who have highjacked the debate are those in the denialist camp. One can look at the people behind these camps, that put out the contrarian information be they Steven Milloy (junkscience), Tim Ball, and many others to find out that it is they who have a reason for clouding the issue and politicizing it. Many of those in the global warming denialist camp are people who were paid 'scientists' to voice objections to anti-smoking legislation, saying smoking was in no way linked to cancer; Steve Milloy and Fred Singer being two principle people. Many others who dont have that dubious background sadly are highly connected with oil and gas funding, especially Exxon Mobile, which has been quietly funding the denialist camp for years.


    There are still open questions and there are many scientists who actively are researching this but there is a broad general consensus among the peer reviewed scientists that global warming is not only occurring but that present global warming has a significant anthropogenic component. As Bob asked why are all of the major scientific bodies of virtually every OECD nation saying the same thing, anthropogenic global warming is real and is a serious problem. This isn't some environmentalist conspiracy, the green movement has never had that kind of pull or sway, these people are expressing these views largely because they believe them to be true. There may be the odd one going along with the crowd but there is no underlying conspiracy.
  244. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: J D Wood from Toronto writes:'........ like Stephen Harper here is that they need to focus on science and scientific understanding, instead of religious doctrine that has so far been the controlling factor in their tenure'

    HOW COME HIS RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE ALLOW HIM TO LIE
  245. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Mama Theresa.
  246. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: Just imagine, for a second, if Al Gore did not flunk out of running the country and actually did become president, instead of losing. Would he have made Inconvenient Truth? Was this his priority, or a sideline show since flunking the American people on running the USA.
  247. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Yvonne Wackernagel I know that you'd like to hammer a nail but you have chosen the wrong one.

    How did he (Gore) lie? Get specific and be prepared to back your assertions with verifiable links or else bang your hammer elsewhere.
  248. klmklm klmklm from Toroonto, Canada writes: What does climate change have to do with Peace? You can have fight climate change (fight = war on climate change) but this is surely not peaceful. Did Gore raise awareness...100% Does he deserve the Peace prize over people who actually want to bring peace...0%

    What a shame....who is on the Nobel committee?
  249. Bogo Pogo from Canada writes: The Nobel Peace prize committee consists of a bunch of kooks. We always suspected it, now we know it is a 'scientific fact'.

    At least the Science prize committees had the clarity of mind and intelligence not to award the Physics or Chemistry Nobel prizes to him!
  250. Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: Bob I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think you and I share many common ideals. I for one share your impressions about the environment. My mom has a cottage near Georgian Bay. The shoreline has receded year after year making swimming on alot of beaches almost impossible. And I for one try and do my part. Usually while I am there I will spend 1/2 hour walking along the beach picking up garbage that I spot along my route. No matter the causes we definitely need to do what we can because if we wait for gov'ts to do anything we will be living in a worse toxis stew than we do today. And this includes alot more dangerous polutants (in my opinion) than CO2.
  251. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Kim Huynh: You left out the last sentence of the Economist news analysis (not leader - editorial) they have posted on their website:

    'Nevertheless, America is now generally expected to accept in some form the controls on emissions that it rejected when it turned down Kyoto, and Mr Gore has been instrumental in getting it there.'

    Gore's film is propaganda. But it is solidly based on the science, with some alarmist conclusions for effect. So what? Gore deserves a very great deal of credit for bringing worldwide attention to a very serious problem that requires worldwide action.
  252. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Peace is a strategic thing. War is tactical. If you choose to award the Peace Prize to tactical fighters, you ignore the valus of avoidance of war rather than winning one.

    We face terrible consequences if we ignore the potential impact on the entire world of proven human-driven global warming.

    Wouldn't you rather make peace before the war breaks out?
  253. Al Suba from Trenton, Canada writes: This is a profound, and probably permanent stain on the Nobel Peace Prize.
  254. Karin Pasnak from North Vancouver, Canada writes: Congratulation Al Gore!
    Now it's time to save your country!!!!
    PLEASE RUN!!!!!!!!!
  255. Gilgamesh the First from Canada writes: So for all you people who don't agree with Al Gore and man made Global warming it's okay for China to burn tons of coal and oil to accelerate its economy. So the yellow skies over Shanghia will not affect you. Go ahead China and burn and pollute all you want because now you have all the neo-cons and righties defending your pollutions harmlessness. You are not to blame for polluting the earth. They will attend the Olympics without nose covers because the pollution you create is part of the climate cycles the earth goes through. There is no such thing as global warming and the Earth is healthy and the waters are clear and drinkable and the fish are not complaining. So let's pollute some more and scrap Kyoto and stop talking about the trendy global warming subject. I love the righties because the are so optimistic and they are just relaxing on their sofas smoking another cigarette. In a few years they won't even have to buy a snow shovel because their great leader Bush Two will have brought back a lot of hot air from the middle east to warm our vast and dry and hot country. Life goes on and if we can't talk about peace we can at least talk about war because there is lots of it.
  256. Mike W from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Mr. Gore said he planned to donate his share of the prize money to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.'

    How rich this is. The Goracle just happens to be the Chairman of the Board for the Alliance for Climate Protection. Kind of like donating money from your front pocket to your back pocket.

    Gore is a joke.
  257. Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: J Kay in response to your Kyoto statistics I am aware that Russia wasn't included in the EU however East Germany definitely is and they had a massive collapse of their massively polluting manufacturing sector after the fall of the wall. That helps greatly in getting Germany where it is at today in terms of their Kyoto commitment. That and their increased reliance on nucleur reactors and other renewable energy sources. However interesting to note that they have scaled back plans with regards to wind due to the high costs and unreliability of this tech. I have no doubt that these European countries are doing better than us with regards to Kyoto commitments due to one main point. The massive increase in our tar sands activities. The tar sands and overall mining industry has spurred our economic growth and the tar sands are extremely GHG intensive. We all have benefited economically from this increase in GHG due to increase royalties being paid to Ottawa. My assertion remains that Kyoto was significantly more ardous for Canada to implement than the rest of the world. Name one other country who has such massive amounts of oil, such a large manufacturing sector, expanding underground mineral and resource extraction, extremely geographically sparse mixed in with our population increase. Kyoto was crap for Canada especially in the light of how ineffective it would have been in getting other countries to seriously limit their emissions.
  258. J R from Vancouver, Canada writes: At the rate George Bush is going, Bill Clinton may be getting a Nobel Peace Prize soon. Carter and Gore already got theirs. Bush makes everyone else look good and peace promoting.
  259. SB from Ontario from Canada writes: Congratulations to Al Gore. A well derserved achievement.
  260. A. K. from Edmonton, Canada writes: IPCC deserved it more than Gore. They have done the real work (and some of it questions Gore's claims).

    The solution to global warming or just keeping the environment clean for future generations will come from communities across the world.

    I believe we need to change, but I don't agree with the tone Gore and Suzuki present. they are both self-serving. IPCC is not.

    Nobel Peace Prize should not have gone to Gore.
  261. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    'My mom has a cottage near Georgian Bay. The shoreline has receded year after year making swimming on alot of beaches almost impossible. And I for one try and do my part. Usually while I am there I will spend 1/2 hour walking along the beach picking up garbage that I spot along my route. '

    Picking up garbage isn't going to make the level of the lake rise.
  262. George Manson from Canada writes: Pseudo Science wins again !!!
  263. klmklm klmklm from Toroonto, Canada writes: Gilgamesh the First from Canada

    What you state has nothing to do with winning the peace prize. But thanks for bringing up China and Bush and neo-cons...they have alot to do with Gore winning the prize. I know see the logic(?) of the Nobel committee.

    This is not about climate change. This is about winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I could see if they gave him the prize for science. It would make a hell of alot more sense...but peace? Ridiculous.
  264. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: Kyoto is long dead and no longer exists. If the EU wants money from us, tell them to come here to get it. Maybe we need a war to set things right.
  265. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes:
    AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH...

    All said and done, congratulations to Mr. Gore.

    However, it all seems so curious: Mr. Gore's efforts have stirred up division, not brought Peace, while his subject is more suitable to a Nobel Prize for Science.

    Very inconvenient...
  266. Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    'My mom has a cottage near Georgian Bay. The shoreline has receded year after year making swimming on alot of beaches almost impossible. And I for one try and do my part. Usually while I am there I will spend 1/2 hour walking along the beach picking up garbage that I spot along my route. '

    Picking up garbage isn't going to make the level of the lake rise.

    And your snarky out of context comments are helping the environment in which way J. C.?
  267. Calev Rhyason from Canada writes: How could they give Al Gore the Noble PEACE Prize? How did he promote peace? HE DIDN'T! There are way more important people who actually did something to try and bring peace to the world like President Martti Ahtisaari or Irena Sendler or finally giving Mahatma Gandhi the award he defiantly deserved. Given, Global warming is a problem and Al Gore has done alot, but I think that us in the west forget that it’s not the only problem. There are still people being killed in Darfur, people dying from disease, and people starving to death throughout the world. Saving peoples lives is the most important issue now. How many lives has Al Gore saved? Irena Sendler saved at least 2,500 Jewish children from certain death. So many other people deserved this award like Pope John XXIII, Pope John Paul II, Steve Biko, Raphael Lemkin, Herbert Hoover, CĂ©sar Chávez, Jose Figueres Ferrer or Oscar Romero. All of these people are far more deserving. The Noble Prize Committee has forever tarnished their reputation.
  268. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: Just imagine, for a second, if Al Gore did not flunk out of running the country and actually did become president, instead of losing. Would he have made Inconvenient Truth? Was this his priority, or a sideline show since flunking the American people on running the USA.

    A pointless insinuation that is impossible to refute, since you don't actually say anything.
  269. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Each of you has the opportunity to make your own assessments. You'll find the science here: http://www.ipcc.ch/

    I suggest, 'George Manson', that you provide backing for your emotional blast else get out of the conversation.
  270. J Kay from Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk: That a significant source of the rise of GHG in Canada is the tar sands doesnt somehow absolve Canada of any responsibility. One suggestion that has been put forth regarding the huge intensity of tar sands development has been to build nuclear reactors to provide much of the massive energy required for tar sands extraction. But regardless of that, Canada could replace coal fired power plants for nuclear. There isn't necessarily a perfect solution, as even nuclear, wind, hydro etc have their downsides and detractors. The problem with the tar sands argument is it's an argument in favour of ignoring negative economic externalities. One of the points of the emissions trading idea is to commoditize emissions and thus internalize those costs. That makes tar sand development look a lot less attractive when the true costs are borne by the development. It doesn't mean it stops, but at least a truer accounting is done. The massive water usage and fouling should also be included. Canada could however internally offset the emissions from the tar sands or other energy intensive, CO2 emitting operations by ensuring that carbon credits, even if only nationally, were traded, allowing parts of the country that can do things greener to do so to offset those areas that cannot.


    It amazes me that the people most opposed to carbon trading, are those most vocally in favour of free markets, yet when it comes to GHG they deplore market based solutions. Instead I guess we're to do nothing, continue to externalise costs and let the metaphorical invisible hand magically work.
  271. Martin Bernstein from LonG BEACH, United States writes: I. C. from Brunei Darussalam writes: Oh, and the science of climate change isn't a religion?

    By definition, the science of global change is not a religion, nor is intelligent design a science.

    Back to Gore. . .So, he didn't invent the Internet.
  272. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes:
    UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shares the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Obviously Science is not part of the equation.
  273. B F from Ottawa, Canada writes: The link between global warming and peace? If people knowingly destroy the environment in which they and others need to live, is that not violence? Global warming, without doubt, will cause social unrest and conflict -- possibly, the likes of which the world has never seen before.

    Congratulations to Al Gore for being a masterful messenger. What we do with the message is what matters now.
  274. klmklm klmklm from Toroonto, Canada writes: what is IPCC?
  275. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: George Manson from Canada writes: Pseudo Science wins again !!!

    ...yes, because no one is better suited to decide what is legitimate science and what is pseudo science than a bunch of cheeseburger-eating rednecks
  276. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: My criticism of Al Gore receiving the Nobel Prize has nothing to do with the importance of environmental protection and the human race.

    Al Gore is a political advocate who espouses consensus science. In office, in power, he accomplished nothing. Yasar Arafat accomplished nothing.

    And this is my observation ... the Nobel committee now recognizes politicization as opposed to action. The concept of politicization is the very reason the environment, starvation, disease, war, genocide, atrocities continue and increase in the 21st century while rich nations talk. That is politicization.
  277. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: Kyoto was a junk science accord and money laundering program - it would bankrupt the economies of countries like Canada and the US while, at the same time, rewarding and allowing 'emerging' high polluters like China and India to build over 800 more coal-fired plants that would spew out 5 times more pollution than Kyoto would save! Kyoto was like Gore - little substance and full of hot air!
  278. Reg Anderson from Canada writes: Wow these neo-cons will critisize anything to bully their point home. Now its the nobel peace prize selections. What a bunch of greedy unethical saps.
  279. B to the A to the R to the T from The left coast, Canada writes: Heard this joke: Al Gore may not have invented the internet, but he did make up Global Warming.:)

    But seriously, well deserved Al!

    He brought not just climate chagne but environmentalism to the main stream. I for one try to look at the sustainability and not just cost in terms of time and money when making dicisions like driving somewhere (try to combine trips), heating my home (lower temp by a few degrees), and buying manufactured products (by recycled or recyclable). Oh yeah, I eat vegetarian.
  280. klmklm klmklm from Toroonto, Canada writes: B F from Ottawa, Canada

    Thanks for at least stating an argument for his winning the Prize.
  281. Joel Canada from Calgary, Canada writes: JD Wood, the first poster, said it very well: 'The important lesson for people like Stephen Harper here is that they need to focus on science and scientific understanding....' HARPER and his Conservative party have been floundering from day one on the critical environmental issues: 1. Their lie that Kyoto will devastate our economy. Absolute bunk. The Europeans are doing nicely, BP (second largest oil company in the world) has met and EXCEEDED all the Kyoto targets relevant to BP's oil and gas production, etc. etc. What shocks me to the core is how many Canadians bought the Conservatives lie without question. 2. Their cancelling of funding to the Canadian Wildlife Service. Yup, the scientists out in the field who are monitoring the biological signs of our air and water are fired because of Harper budgetary 'belt tightening' while he brags about a $18,000,000,000 dollar (that's eighteen billion dollars) surplus this year! 3. At first the Conservatives were bragging about being leaders in climate change policy. Now they're falling in behind the other major polluters like India, China and the USA. It's no longer 'We're Number One!'; more like 'We're Number Six' or worse... Al Gore: good on you. You look and act like a world class leader.
  282. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'm guessing that 'Dan Van Gageldonk' is now substituting for ' Yvonne Wackernagel'.

    Back your flames with credible avatars and personas or get out of our faces.
  283. B to the A to the R to the T from The left coast, Canada writes: IPCC= Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A body of scientists and policy makers. Google it.
  284. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes: Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: J.C. Davies from Canada writes: '...Usually while I am there I will spend 1/2 hour walking along the beach picking up garbage that I spot along my route. '

    Picking up garbage isn't going to make the level of the lake rise.

    And your snarky out of context comments are helping the environment in which way J. C.?
    --------------------------------------------------------------

    Danny VG I believe JC is pointing out the lack of concern toward the environment that exists at the level of those who profess to appreciate nature while they huck their garbage into it.

    Fixing the planet, which so many people claim to want, begins with the small steps, the seldom-seen-by-others steps. We can't all make grandiose alarmist films about how everybody else is polluting the planet.

    Most of what can be accomplished can be accomplished at the local levels. Unfortunately no one gets a big credit or prize for picking up someone elses garbage.
  285. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: From links I cannot paste due to dashes in it from The Christian Science Monitor:

    'The official treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions hasn't gone into effect yet and already three countries are planning to build nearly 850 new coal-fired plants, which would pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce.'

    'By 2012, the plants in three key countries - China, India, and the United States - are expected to emit as much as an extra 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to a Monitor analysis of power-plant construction data. In contrast, Kyoto countries by that year are supposed to have cut their CO2 emissions by some 483 million tons.'

    Yes, let us Canadians spend billions of dollars to reduce our 3% of global CO2 emissions. WE can save the world from melting. Donate all your money now, before its too late.
  286. Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: J Kay it seems like our discussion got off track. I am not advocating doing nothing with the tar sands. My point on the tar sands was to show why our Kyoto obligations were much more ardous than the rest of the worlds. Canada is in a unique situation in the world and it would seem that Kyoto has made allowances for other countries special circumstances. Iceland and Australia both signed on that their emmissions were allowed to increase. My whole point was that Kyoto was crap for the world and especially for Canada and the fact that environmentalists keep pushing it to this date is what makes them lose credibility. That was the starting point of this conversation and my bringing up the tar sands was only to point out the special circumstances that exists in Canada and definitely not an endorsement of do nothing. They should slow down the growth of the tar sands and increase resources to ensure that there is less of an impact on the environment. I am not anti-environment or into letting polution continue unabated but am merely skeptical of the tactics used by alot of supporters of AGW.
  287. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: B to the A to the R to the T from The left coast, Canada writes:I for one try to look at the sustainability and not just cost in terms of time and money when making dicisions like driving somewhere (try to combine trips), heating my home (lower temp by a few degrees), and buying manufactured products (by recycled or recyclable). Oh yeah, I eat vegetarian.

    Gee: you rabbited on at me about what I do for the environment and when I compare my answer to yours I guess I do a lot more that your wishy-washy answers! By the way, how many vegetarians do you eat each week?
  288. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Alan Burke: I like your comment that war is tactics and peace is strategy. (But I don't like your swipe at Dan.) Carl von Clausewitz would agree with you.

    Mike W: How much does Al Gore make as chair of the board of the Alliance for Climate Protection? I suspect it is a registered non-profit in the U.S. in which case its audited financial statements are public domain. I have no idea what the answer might be. But if I were making a statement about it one way or the other, I would check.

    As far as the contribution of Gore and the IPCC is concerned, the Pentagon recently identified human-caused global warming as an incredibly serious threat to peace.
  289. n storman from buffalo, United States writes: Well another award from an organization that seems to pick every loser they can find.Any organization that would give awards to Yasser Arafat,Jimmy Carter and now Al Gore is swiftly proving their their irrelivancy.
  290. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes:
    I NOMINATE...

    I nominate for the Nobel Prize the guys who, with little thanks and less fanfare, bust their butts, skin their knuckles, plug their noses and tire their limbs, to pick up the garbage in my alley every week, doing their part.
  291. Jacob Kasperowicz from Kirkland, Canada writes: It appears that the Nobel Peace Prize is going the way of the Order of Canada. Hang around in the right circles and you're bound to get one.
  292. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: 'As far as the contribution of Gore and the IPCC is concerned, the Pentagon recently identified human-caused global warming as an incredibly serious threat to peace.'

    Sounds like Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction alarm a couple years ago. The Pentagon has no credibility.
  293. Agent Smith from Canada writes: If this were kindergarten, you'd have to give Bush a lollipop right now to help his self-esteem.
  294. Dan Van Gageldonk from toronto, Canada writes: Alan Burke blow it out of your behind my friend. I have no idea what your problem is with the tenure of my discussion but trying and silencing those who dissent from your viewpoint is quite noble. Maybe you could help me in becoming someone such as yourself who's viewpoints have some value.
  295. ss dd from vancouver, Canada writes: Hey, give the guy a break !
    He lost the US presidency, and his merits for inventing the internet were denied. He needed a consolation prize (and what a better one than the NPP :-)

    Anyway, he seems to be in good company, among such illustrious figures as Mandela the revolutionary, Arrafat the peacenick, and Carter... the clown.
  296. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: If in fact, 'Dan Van Gageldonk' I mistook your handle for someone else, I apologize but the coincidence was compelling.

    Kyoto was flawed. If you choose to assume that backers of environmental change are solely in that camp then you do a big disservice to others who are trying to find a solution.
  297. Rain SCM from Vancouver, Canada writes: I am absolutely disgusted and repulsed by most Canadians on this post. The NeoCons have shown up in full force to bully and make fun of a man who is doing more for the globe than their idols, Harper and Bush.

    As for science, I can walk out into my neighbourhood and see the effects of climate change on a daily basis in dozens of different ways. Those trying to deny that anything is actually happening or using weather cycles as an excuse are completely eclipsed by the fact that the rest of see what is happening outside our own windows. Most of the world knows, move on to another issue or admit your mistakes, but do not stop the rest of us who want to make a difference like putting significant funds in renewable resources and energy or invest in research for automobiles that run on cleaner fuels. I for one would be very happy to see cash gouging gas stations out of business.

    What upsets NeoCons more? That Gore is and will always be more relevant in the grand scheme of things than our politicians? That he has won very prestigious awards for the work that he has done instead of sending the US into a misguided war which is draining the US economy? That NeoCons have been proven wrong yet again?
  298. klmklm klmklm from Toroonto, Canada writes: Reg Anderson from Canada writes: Wow these neo-cons will critisize anything to bully their point home. Now its the nobel peace prize selections. What a bunch of greedy unethical saps.

    Ridiculous comment...I am not a neo-con. The left despises criticism of its tenets just as the cons do. Grow-up! NON neo-cons are not perfect as your underlying smuggness insinuates
  299. B to the A to the R to the T from The left coast, Canada writes: Rob R are you a vegan?
  300. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: ManBearPig! Run! South Park classic on Gore and the greatest threat facing humanity.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3105972745769221582&q=manbearpig&total=384&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
  301. by polar from Canada writes: OK, Gore doesn't deserve the prize. Who should have been awarded with it?
  302. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Mike W: How much does Al Gore make as chair of the board of the Alliance for Climate Protection? I suspect it is a registered non-profit in the U.S. in which case its audited financial statements are public domain. I have no idea what the answer might be. But if I were making a statement about it one way or the other, I would check.

    Actually Bob I have looked on the ACP website and, maybe it's just me, but I can find no mention of funding disclosure or financial statement links - maybe you can point me to where they are? There's a lot of (good) information and self-promotion but I can't find any fiscal data so if any of you folks out there can point me in the right direction......!
  303. axxie fox from ottawa, Canada writes: The Nobel Prizes were established in the will of Nobel, a Swedish industrialist who died in 1896. The only framework he set for the peace prize was that it should honor people who have promoted 'fraternity between nations,' peace conferences or the 'abolition or reduction of standing armies.'
    In its citation, the prize committee linked climate to peace by saying a global warming could lead to large-scale migration and greater competition for resources, raising the risk of wars between and within nations.
    Many scientists and environmentalists applauded the prize as an acknowledgment that melting glaciers, sea-level rise and droughts brought on by climate change is one of humanity's greatest challenges.
    So with this said, do you think we can give this prestigious Nobel Prizes to Scientist like the likes of David Suzuki?
  304. ss dd from vancouver, Canada writes: 'by polar from Canada writes: OK, Gore doesn't deserve the prize'

    You're wrong. The guy is PERFECT for THAT prize :-)
  305. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: What about ManBearPig?
  306. Wir sind das Volk from Toronto, Canada writes: I seriously doubt Gore could win the US presidential election; the right would have a field day with his 'secret agenda' to ban cars, air travel and wal-mart... If he runs and gets the nomination, it will be another case of the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot and running someone out of step with everyday Americans.
  307. klmklm klmklm from Toroonto, Canada writes: Rain SCM from Vancouver, Canada writes: I am absolutely disgusted and repulsed by most Canadians on this post. The NeoCons have shown up in full force to bully and make fun of a man who is doing more for the globe than their idols, Harper and Bush.

    I do not see anybody bullying on this post. THe left is trying to make this a ideoligical issue of global warming. The award is for PEACE and I have only read one left (guessing) posters even put forth an argument for why he deserves the award. The rest of the left is just pushing anti-harper and anti-bush agenda...why do you not mention the inconsistancies of the President of China..or India. DO you know the Chinese leaders name? Do you know India's leaders name? These two countries have done alot more to harm the globe than Harper or Bush.

    The left is bogged down in anti-harper and bush sentiment. get over it. They were both elected.
  308. john chuckman from Canada writes: My, we do have some nasty little schoolboy carpers here.

    The history of the Nobel Peace Prize should be clear to all literate people. It reflects aspirations by those awarding it.

    My God, genuine monsters like the soulless Kissinger or Begin, an authentic murderous terrorist, won it only out of hopes for peace.

    The biggest humanitarian fraud of the 20th century, Mother Teresa, won it out of hopes of calling attention to the plight of the poor.

    Global warming promises to be one of great catastrophes of the human era. The gigantic migrations of tens of millions away from new deserts or submerged lands to other places will generate massive conflict.

    The warming is proved, the causation is rather less than certain, but I'm willing to go along with efforts to reduce human carbon waste because the outcome could be horrendous and we will only become more efficient and technologically advanced societies in the effort
  309. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: B to the A to the R to the T from The left coast, Canada writes: Rob R are you a vegan?

    I'm not going to tell you because then you'll only come and eat me!!!
  310. B to the A to the R to the T from The left coast, Canada writes: Rob R, My list was partial. I'm glad you're making a difference. The things you outlined are very comprehensive. There are some people who decry anything envioronmentally sustainable as too expensive or too difficult, or too anything that excuses them from responsibility. Sorry for not giving my list sooner, I was walking the dog.
  311. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    'Picking up garbage isn't going to make the level of the lake rise.

    And your snarky out of context comments are helping the environment in which way J. C.? '

    I was merely pointing out the non sequitur of the comment.

    Nonetheless if you really want to do something for the 'environment' stop driving to the cottage.
  312. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: Gore did not invent the internet. Gore states that he 'created the internet'. But he did not invent it.
  313. klmklm klmklm from Toroonto, Canada writes: axxie fox from ottawa, Canada writes: The Nobel Prizes were established in the will of Nobel, a Swedish industrialist who died in 1896. The only framework he set for the peace prize was that it should honor people who have promoted 'fraternity between nations,' peace conferences or the 'abolition or reduction of standing armies.'

    Okay...even better...here is a reason why Gore won. 'The only framework he set for the peace prize was that it should honor people who have promoted 'fraternity between nations,' Wheather I like or not Gore HAS tried to promote a global fraternity between nations under climate change.
  314. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: B to the A to the R to the T from The left coast, Canada writes: Rob R, My list was partial. I'm glad you're making a difference. The things you outlined are very comprehensive. There are some people who decry anything envioronmentally sustainable as too expensive or too difficult, or too anything that excuses them from responsibility. Sorry for not giving my list sooner, I was walking the dog.

    Sorry, I was just kidding you about your list - you seem honest about what you are doing too! I guess we are bothing trying in our own small ways! 2 of my 3 daughters are vegetarian and the rest of us are what I call 'semi-veggies' - we eat a little chicken and some fish but stay away from red meat, except my son-in-law but nobodys perfect. I assume you are a vegan which is comendible but somehow I just can't go that far!
  315. b mac from Canada writes: A judge in Britain has ruled that Gore’s movie on climate change should come with a warning. The case was brought by truck driver Stewart Dimmock, who accused the British government of “brainwashing” children. He ordered the government to rewrite its guidelines to highlight the movie’s falsehoods. Gore’s claim: A retreating glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania is evidence of global warming. Finding: The government’s expert witness conceded this was not correct. Gore: Ice core samples prove that rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused temperature increases. Finding: Rises in carbon dioxide actually lagged behind temperature increases by 800-2000 years. Gore: Global warming triggered Hurricane Katrina, devastating New Orleans. Finding: The government’s expert accepted it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming. Gore: Global warming is causing Africa’s Lake Chad to dry up. Finding: The government’s expert accepted that this was not the case. Gore: Polar bears had drowned due to disappearing Arctic ice. Finding: Only four polar bears drowned, due to a particularly violent storm. Gore: Global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, plunging Europe into a new ice age. Finding: A scientific impossibility. Gore: Species losses, including coral reef bleaching, are the result of global warming. Finding: No evidence to support the claim. Gore: Melting ice in Greenland could cause sea levels to rise dangerously. Finding: Greenland ice will not melt for millennia. Gore: Ice cover in Antarctica is melting. Finding: It increasing. Gore: Sea levels could rise by seven metres, causing the displacement of millions of people. Finding: Sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimetres over 100 years. Gore: Rising sea levels caused the evacuation of Pacific islanders to New Zealand. Finding: The court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
  316. klmklm klmklm from Toroonto, Canada writes: Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: Gore did not invent the internet. Gore states that he 'created the internet'. But he did not invent it.

    The basis of theInternet was an military endeavour created in the 60's
  317. can I vote again from around-Kingston, Canada writes: it's unseasonably cool around Kingston this week, sure glad this news item came up...I can feeeeeeel the warming now!
  318. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Let us not forget that other recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize who is convinced HIV is a bio-engineered weapon designed by evil white scientists to exterminate the blacks.

    I bring you Wangari Maathai!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wangari_Maathai

    These PC morons at the Nobel Mansion are as disconnected from reality as the President of Columbia inviting Iran's president to speak at Columbia and then throwing a hissy fit about a swastika found in a bathroom stall a couple of days ago. /sorry about the run-on; global warming is altering my vision
  319. Grey Rabbit from Canada writes: OK I nominate Conrad Longpen Black
  320. ss dd from vancouver, Canada writes: 'Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: Gore did not invent the internet. Gore states that he 'created the internet'. But he did not invent it.'

    I see, the all too subtle diferrences between 'creating' and 'inventing' something. Care to explain them ?

    Should we call Gore a 'creationist' maybe ?
  321. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: Gore did not invent the internet. Gore states that he 'created the internet'. But he did not invent it.

    The 'Gore-Bore' just has no luck whatsoever! He is the Rodney Dangerfield of phonys - he just can't get no respect! He gets no credit for the internet, gets 'chadded' by Bush, and then gets a Nobel Peace Prize dumped on him - what a shame for a guy who actually did create the heavens and earth!
  322. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: A positive suggestion ... Doctors without Borders, but they are most definitely not political and avoid the media spotlight to focus on their humanitarian work throughout the world.
  323. Chris H from To, Canada writes: Chuckman:

    You even have a problem with Mother Teresa?
  324. OAK ! from Canada writes: Gore deserves an award for that rock concert he organized last summer. That was one great show!
  325. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rain SCM from Vancouver, Canada writes:'... do not stop the rest of us who want to make a difference like putting significant funds in renewable resources and energy or invest in research for automobiles that run on cleaner fuels.'

    Go right ahead with those investments, just don't go piddling my money on ideologically-driven wastefulness.

    On the bright side, at least the Nobel committee realized that neither Gore nor the IPCC has enough actual science behind them to warrant even a mention.
  326. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: b mac: You just did exactly the same thing I complained about a long way above. You plaigarized a Vancouver Province column that is very seriously flawed. If you look at the version actually in the Province rather than on Canada.com, you will see that a couple of the major flaws are acknowledged (somewhat bizarrely).

    You should look at the actual judgement, especially in the judge's major conclusion that the basics of Gore's film are very solidly based on the science.
  327. b mac from Canada writes: There are a lot of compulsive liars in the Environmental Movement and Al Gore seems to be the leader.
  328. Chris H from To, Canada writes: Hi Larry:

    Doctors without Borders did win the NPP in 1999. Hard to believe it was so long ago. Definitely deserved it.
  329. B to the A to the R to the T from The left coast, Canada writes: Rob R . No I'm no vegan, although I am at home and when I can be. Elsewhere but when eating out it's easier to just be vegetarian sometimes. What people don't see is that you do not have to be a Environut to contribute and maybe save a few bucks. I think the biggest issue facing humanity is how to make our 'first world' standard of living sustainable and how to increase the standard of living of billions of poor people in overpopulated countries while living within a finite planet.
  330. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: 'For his part, Gore in a statement said he was ' deeply honored ... We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.''

    So - did he give up his unfriendly greenhouse effect energy gobbling home, or is he just talking sheet again.
  331. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: john chuckman from Canada writes:'The warming is proved, the causation is rather less than certain...'

    The warming stopped over six years ago, in March 2001.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

    Or if you like the pretty graphs:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf

    And just like the last transition from warming to cooling in 1940, the southern hemisphere is leading the northern one. This is an indication that the two nearly identical 30-year warming periods (1910-1940, 1970-2000) may have been caused by the same factor.
  332. Nickstar One from Canada writes: '.....Try sitting in your garage with the door closed and your car running for a few minutes and tell me how clean the air is......' No need to personally take such health debilitating, high risk behaviour. This risk has been forcefully foisted upon some 5 million Canadians(courtesy of the grand scheme of the UN's WHO, kissing fraud cousins of the UN's IPCC and using virtually the same MO) who are now disaffectionately known as the '30 feet from any entrance crowd'. These bullied and abused victims(ultimately a creation of the UN's WHO fraudsters), could easily confirm your quoted hypothesis. The betting is that the Goracle(seeing the huge financial success and rewards for all on the bandwagon of this most obvious of UN-inspired, social engineering frauds) decided 'to go one better and go immediately global' and rapturously latched on to the idea of prostrating himself at the idol of 'human activity global warming' and reaping the abundantly limitless, financial rewards. Al, the Environmental Pal, and assorted like-minded travellers on the 'global warming bandwagon' are smirking self-assuredly all the way to the bank. To those who waver from the manipulated and narrowly focused agenda, forget it, they are just a bunch of ill-informed 'deniers' of the 'global warming gospel'. Heretics all, to be summarily dismissed as inconsequential.
  333. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Frank N. Stein from Canada writes:'So - did he give up his unfriendly greenhouse effect energy gobbling home, or is he just talking sheet again?'

    I heard it rumoured that he and his wife had bought a fifth home, but I don't know if that's confirmed.
  334. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: 'British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called Gore ' inspirational in focusing attention across the globe on this key issue.''

    But has he given up his energy gobbling house? It seems rich folks are immune to giving up things to save the world. Just talk, no action.
  335. Arec Bardwin from Canada writes: Sounds like there is a consensus that the nobel peace prize is a total farce.
  336. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: 'Julia Marton-Lefèvre, head of the World Conservation Union, said that, 'as Mr. Gore and the IPCC have clearly demonstrated, we can solve the grave dangers posed by climate change if we have the will. '

    Lots of pats on the back, but what did he do in his personal life to save the world? What did he do, that he is calling on each of us to do?
  337. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes: Rain SCM from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...
    As for science, I can walk out into my neighbourhood and see the effects of climate change on a daily basis in dozens of different ways.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Name them.

    It doesn't take Science to tell me that here on Vancouver Island the tide has not engulfed Nanaimo, rising no farther today that it did this time last year; that the leaves of autumn are coming sooner this year than last; that last winter we had more snow than previous winters, that it has been colder and wetter this summer than last summer. Would you like more indicators of Glow Ball War, Ming?.

    Neither Mr. Harper nor nor Mr. Bush is my idol. However, I do respect them to the degree that they are not running to the whistle of every 'sky is falling' alarmist bunch of lemmings.

    The Libs stand and whinge, while they chant 'Kyoto' to help lull their brains into forgeting they did nothing about it themselves while in power.

    The problem with the 'anti-Con / pro-Libs' is they have no substance, only emotion at wholesale discount bargain-basement prices.
  338. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: He is doing nothing to save us from ManBearPig, and that is a travesty. Humans rightfully should fear ManBearPig, for our doom is guaranteed. I am heartened to know that more of our children are scared of ManBearPig than the farcical man-induced global warming propaganda.
  339. Another Option canada from Canada writes: Wow allot of hot-air comments on this article..

    My 2 cent political comment.... If there was a Nobel prize for war would Bush will that ?
  340. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Another Option canada from Canada writes: Wow allot of hot-air comments on this article..

    My 2 cent political comment.... If there was a Nobel prize for war would Bush will that ?

    ---

    Well, the Kurds would probably vote for it but then again they are drowning along with millions of cuddly polar bears. ManBearPig!
  341. Mike G from Canada writes: can i vote again says: 'it's unseasonably cool around Kingston this week, sure glad this news item came up...I can feeeeeeel the warming now!'

    You might want to rename yourself can i post again. The argument in this post so completely misses the point of global warming as to not be funny.
  342. axxie fox from ottawa, Canada writes: ss dd from vancouver, Canada writes: 'Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: Gore did not invent the internet. Gore states that he 'created the internet'. But he did not invent it.'
    No one person invented the Internet as we know it today. However, certain major figures contributed major breakthroughs:
    J.C.R. Licklider was the first to describe an Internet-like worldwide network of computers, in 1962. He called it the 'Galactic Network.'
    Larry G. Roberts created the first functioning long-distance computer networks in 1965 and designed the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), the seed from which the modern Internet grew, in 1966.
    Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf invented the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) which moves data on the modern Internet, in 1972 and 1973. If any two people 'invented the Internet,' it was Kahn and Cerf - but they have publicly stated that 'no one person or group of people' invented the Internet.
    Radia Perlman invented the spanning tree algorithm in the 1980s. Her spanning tree algorithm allows efficient bridging between separate networks. Without a good bridging solution, large-scale networks like the Internet would be impractical.
    So what did Al Gore say about the internet, again!!!!!
  343. Dave Herzog from Iowa, United States writes: Algore is a phony. His father, a democrat, voted against the Civil Rights Act. The might as well have skipped the peace prize this year.

    You know, another ice age is coming and there is nothing we can do about it.
  344. J Kay from Canada writes: Dan Von Gageldonk: We may got side tracked however I still am not certain you assertion is fair. Yes Germany did benefit from East Germany joining, however there has been constant growth of the Germany economy with some of the old inefficient industries of east germany being replaced. The same could happen in canada with coal power plants. Canada may have some unique aspects regarding global warming but it isn't to my mind a valid excuse. To suggest so would be to look at Japan and expect nothing of it because it lacks significantly in the way of natural capital and yet Japan has built a prosperous economy from meager beginnings. Canada too despite some of the hurdles we may have can do so as well. The fact that our targets were 6% and the EU15 average was 8% was to account for some of that, given that even with East Germany, included it did no go a long way to allieviating the burdern on the rest of Europe. The UK with it's long history of coal burning power, north sea oil development, and large population has been able to reduce it's emissions. The one benefit it has over us is greater population density.


    I dont pretend Kyoto is a perfect solution and indeed it was only the first step, with China and India having to commit to reductions in the second phase, but it was a step and one that I dont believe is accurate to portray as unfairly burdensome to Canada.
  345. B Mac from Roachvale, Canada writes: Here's a challenge; Go look up the Nobel Prize laureates for the past 10 years. ( http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/) Without referring to their fluffed-up descriptions, Name 5 who have had the slightest impact on the lives of your or your family.

    Al Gore is a pretentious bag of wind. Let's nominate your mother instead.
  346. Richard Ganton from Milton, Canada writes: Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize and look at what has happened to the Middle East since? Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize and look what happened to Vietnam and Cambodia after.

    The Nuclear watchdog team won the Nobel Peace prize last year? and still Iran is working on the Bomb, Russia is talking about a whole new Missile deployment.

    Now Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace prize for fighting to stop Climate change. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are all in deep doodoo.
  347. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: Mike G from Canada writes: can i vote again says: 'it's unseasonably cool around Kingston this week, sure glad this news item came up...I can feeeeeeel the warming now!'

    You might want to rename yourself can i post again. The argument in this post so completely misses the point of global warming as to not be funny.

    Mike G - Sadly, this is what passes for wit in some circles.
  348. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Axxie Fox: You reference Bob Kahn and Vint Cert, but you fail to say what they wrote about Al Gore: 'As the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: 'During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.' We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he 'invented' the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept.'
  349. J Kay from Canada writes: Dave Herzog: Wow. What exactly does Al Gore father have to do with Al Gore other than being his father. Your post is absurd, a perfect example of the flawed logic and reasoning skills so often tossed about to dismiss, discredit and otherwise end debate without ever saying anything of substance. In no way does what Al Gore's father did have any bearing upon Al Gore Jr. Does the fact his father voted against something mean Al Gore is also against it? That's the implication of your post but the truth is in fact quite the opposite but alas I expect nothing less of the denialist camp than flawed logic/reasoning, filled with strawmen, and rhetoric. Moreover the civil rights act, which you mention has little bearing on whether Al Gore Jr. is deserving of the Peace Prize for his work in bringing attention to anthropogenic global warming. So give it a rest
  350. Larry Robinson from white Rock, Canada writes: John L. Murlowe .. There have been economic circumstances related to climate change across the strait from you in White Rock. June to September weather was so cold and wet that Marine Drive businesses are down on revenue from 50-70%.

    And there are naturals signs of climate change ... our winter migratory ducks are already on the bay before the leaves have fallen.

    Let us not forget the life changes required in Africa due to climate change ... as reported yesterday in the GM, Malawi is now receiving enough rainfall to not only be self-sufficiennt in food production but to be able to send food to Zimbabwe, suffering from politically driven starvation.

    The climate does change.
  351. My reply to a Liberal Hack from Canada writes: I'm not a religious person, but isn't there a saying about beware the false prophet, the fake god, blah, blah, blah, something. Enviroligious followers have now received their annointed prophet, the one to lead them to their nirvana, at all costs. Deniers, Beliver's, spiritial challenge, these are words of a religion are they not. A belief to fill the gap left after the materialist aspect failed to fulfill the soul. People wanting to believe there is more to life that their mere existence, having denounced religious institutions and their dogma, but still wanting to believe in something. To say that this is not a religion is false, it is, it's just in a different form than what we're used to. Unfortunately, like other faiths that people have adopted, this too will be just another fad until the next convincing, charasmatic individual arrives whose goal is to become the next great shepard to lead the willing sheep. Qurious, Islam or Environmentalism, which will be the dominate religion. The NPP has lost a lot of credibility by yielding to the PC instead of Science.

    Now for the obligatory partronizing slam, It's all the NDP's fault! And Stude Ham!.
  352. A. Quebecer from Canada writes: I love articles abbout global warming. All the nay sayers come out and spout. It must suck to be so wrong and watch the world move more and more away from your inane world view.

    Al Gore won a prize. Good for him. Why has this spurned so much hate?

    What I do not understand is the boat loads of money that is going to be made by the people, companies and countries that develop good solutions to industrial pollution before everyone else does. If Canada were to become a world leader in this area our economy would grow exponentialy. Instead, we are going to fight about it until the Americans, Europeans, Russians, Chinese etc. etc. get ahead of us. We will then be forced to import the technology. Now that is really dumb.
  353. Leon Russell from Gatineau, Canada writes: We all know that right-wingers are a minority in this country. Even being middle-of-the-road, Harper has a hard time rounding up thirty percent of support, and Kyoto supporters outnumber the detractors by a fair margin. As for those that deny global warming or think it's part of a natural cycle, they are totally marginalized in the general population. How is it then, that they are all on this Internet forum? Is it because they have no friends, no family and no job and have all day to type?
  354. Watcher 1983 from Just around the corner, Canada writes: Bob Beal from Edmonton, have you ever heard of the 'dustbowl' in the 1930's? The global warming hysteria is being promoted by marxists and other statists to advance and increase state control. Socialism has been dead from the shoulders up for forty years and this is their current ploy to grasp for power. When you have the left-wing politicians at the UN re-writing scientific reports to support their own political agenda it is fairly obvious that there is no supportable science behind manmade global warming.
  355. Valerie Spentzos from Vancouver, Canada writes: Congratulations, Al Gore! Of course the environment has everything to do with peace---- the two are inextricably linked, and you'll find that many environmentalists are also peace activists. if only Mr Gore had become president, the world would be a much saner place today.
  356. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Leon Russell from Gatineau, Canada writes: We all know that right-wingers are a minority in this country. Even being middle-of-the-road, Harper has a hard time rounding up thirty percent of support, and Kyoto supporters outnumber the detractors by a fair margin. As for those that deny global warming or think it's part of a natural cycle, they are totally marginalized in the general population. How is it then, that they are all on this Internet forum? Is it because they have no friends, no family and no job and have all day to type?

    ------

    Maybe because we are the hyper-productive members of society with substantial technical and internet skills? And, given that many of us have scientific training (as I do), we recognize sheer bullshit when we see it.
  357. Peter Glenn from Canada writes: Give me a break. Al Gore? The scientific data he relies on to promote his personal agenda is, in many cases, inherently flawed.

    He has taken the global warming issue and made it into a personal crusade, inspiring all the fear mongers to jump onboard and chant for the end of global warming.

    The problem with that? there is just as much evidence to suggest that the slight warming of the Earths' temerature has absolutely nothing to do with man and everything to do with nature. We went through many an ice age before, followed by warming periods. Was that the result of carbon emmissions too?
    giving him the peace prize makes as much sense as Keanu Reeves winning an oscar.
  358. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: Watcher - You've never read a scientific journal (Science and Nature for example), have you?
  359. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: Regardless of if you believe or not believe in Global Warming, you have to see that Gore is nothing more than a poser.
  360. Andy N. from writes: So now that Al Gore won the Noble Peace Prize, when does George Bush get the Nobel Destruction Prize?
  361. Mark Lanovaz from B.C., writes: Giving Gore the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than politics as Americans will soon be heading to the polls.
  362. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I find it stunning that GlynnMhor can still make assertions here, shown many times to be wrong, about temperatures. He's welcome, I guess to assert falsehoods as much as he'd like. I hope that readers will look beyond his stuck record.

    You have no credibility, GlynnMhor; you have been cherry-picking statistics without looking beyond the short-term effects.
  363. Y Devine from Canada writes: I can't believe what I'm reading here - slight temperature rise; please Mr. Glenn, give your head a shake! What we've done to the earth is abundantly clear and the argument is over, we did it, okay. Instead of taking up a lot of space writing nonsense, look around you. For every action, there is a reaction, right - we are seeing the results of years of dumping hazardous waste in the ground and in the water, polluting the air, dropping bombs, etc. There is an old cowboy saying: 'if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is STOP DIGGING'. Time for us to stop digging and start fixing.

    To the Editor, my congratulations to you - we need more articles like these to keep us thinking and doing what we can to reverse the damage we've done to the earth. Thank you for excellent articles on this important topic.
  364. Kwong Yuan from Canada writes: I am disappointed that George W. Bush did not get the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Bush earned a B.A. Degree at Yale University, major in History. From history, Bush knew that the different sects of Iraqis do not see eye to eye for generations. By invading Iraq and eliminating Hussein, Bush set off a civil war in Iraq. While the Iraqis are busy killing each other, not a single Scud has fallen onto Israel, where Bush has many friends.

    For the peace he brought to Israel in the last several years, Bush deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
  365. Shamus M from Canada writes: To 'Watcher 1983 from Just around the corner, Canada ' He thinks that science is a Marxist plot!!!Yeah, it's all those damned commies trying to ruin our fun! Do people like Watcher really exist or is he just a ghost from the Cold War? Reading some of these comments one gets the idea that there are people who learn geo-politics from old Rambo movies and ouija boards.
  366. Dave Herzog from Iowa, United States writes: J Kay

    My point was this: Algore is a privilaged rich white boy from Tennessee whose father would have preferred black people riding in the back of the bus.

    Algore is no Martin Luther King who did more for peace and justice in USA that anyone in the 20th century. How does making a stupid movie about something that everybody knows about already have anything to do with peace?

    Dweeb
  367. Alex Yaxmos from Canada writes: Fighting Climate Change will lead to peace? Alrite, sure I'll believe that.
  368. Peter Glenn from Canada writes: Y Devine from Canada writes: I can't believe what I'm reading here - slight temperature rise; please Mr. Glenn, give your head a shake!

    There is no conclusive scientific data that proves mankinds effect on the warming temperatures.

    Gore repeatedly spouts that increased CO2 emmissions emitted from us cause a rise in temperature.
    This is incorrect. It has been conclusively proven that the inverse is true.
    Gore is tightly tied into the new Carbon Credit trading system, which benefits from the global warming paranoia.
    It is disappointing that so many are so easy to swallow whatever Gore and the other pundits of global warming spout without question.

    We are in general so conceited a society that we must assume everything we do has a colossal effect on the cosmos.
    The temperature of the earth has fluctuated vastly over the course of history, and will continue to do so even if every car, factory or other 'polluter' is shut down.
  369. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: The political crap going on in this discussion is expected but outrageous.

    Before you blow your opinions to the rest of us, would you, please read what it's all about? The people who would deny the main conclusions of these reports will pick at nits but they'd be impossibly tasked to propose alternatives that stand to scrutiny. Please READ at http://www.ipcc.ch/
  370. stand up mimi from Canada writes: Good for Al Gore and the IPCC. Without the IPCC's extensive research and findings, there would not be the confirmation and broad consensus to back up Gore's efforts in getting the climate change message out. Neither would have been as effective without the other in spurring the change that has begun to happen. So I think it is fitting that both receive this award, which despite the more maroon-like comments above, is still very meaningful. I wish Sheila Watt-Cloutier's efforts could have also been recognized.
  371. OAK ! from Canada writes: I am happy Mr. Gore has finally received the recognition he deserves for inventing global warming.
  372. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Peter Glenn, you are outright wrong. The evidence is in.

    If you can show otherwise, please give us links so that we can verify. Thousands of scientists have published a conservative assessment and you, YOU!, care to assert that they are wrong? I'd be very grateful if you'd publish a verifiable alternative. You cannot do so.
  373. Watcher 1983 from Just around the corner, Canada writes: Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, have you ever read a book or do you just read magazines? Gore's Oscar has more credibility than his 'Peace Prize'.
  374. J Kay from Canada writes: Dave Herzog: I know it may come as a shock to you but the Nobel Prize is not a prize for Americans nor is it a prize given to the person who has done the most for 'peace' in America, not withstanding MLK's contribution to US society. It is irrelevent what Al Gore's father did or believed. Should you be accountable for what you father did, or grandfather? Neither should Al. Moreover it's apparent you didn't quite understand MLK's vision as you cite Al Gore as being undeserving because he's a 'rich WHITE boy', as if that somehow make him less deserving of the honours. Come to think of it Lincoln was a rich white boy too, perhaps the US should stop venerating him as well.

    The Nobel committee gets to decide how to award the prize and it is awarded on the basis of contributions which foster a cooperative and communal partnership between nations to secure a lasting peace. Brining attention to global warming something which threatens all nations, though some disproportionately more than others and requires international cooperation would seem to fall within the general intent of the prize.

    Agumentum ad hominum, I expected no less from someone who has clearly demonstrated an inability to construct a logical or rational argument.
  375. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: Watcher - You've clearly been reading too many books written by people on the far right to believe that climate change is a vast socialist conspiracy. That you don't understand the difference between a magazine and a scientific journal is indicative of a serious lack of understanding and knowledge.
  376. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Well, when global warming raises the seas 20 metres, and Cubans are washing up on the shores of Florida and Sri Lankans wash up on the shores of Australia, we can thank the Goracle for his contribution to world peace and heightened awareness of global warming. Because of Gore, further, there will no longer be any wars over beachfront properties or bottled water. I see the logic of the sages of Scandanavia, my demented cousins.
  377. Watcher 1983 from Just around the corner, Canada writes: Alan Burke from Ottawa, when you see such a clear division on this issue between socialists on the man made side and traditional liberals on the natural occuring side it is easy to conclude that this is a political not a scientific issue. Read about the doctoring of the non-conclusive IPCC report by UN politicians who are supported by big government money. Much is made about oil companies supporting research but there is no mention of academics who are on the payroll of leftist governments such as in Canada under Chretien and Martin.
  378. Susan Kennedey from Montreal, Canada writes: Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Peter Glenn, you are outright wrong. The evidence is in. _______________________________________________________ It's hard to argue with 'the evidence is in' because no one knows what the 'evidence' is. All assumptions are based on computer models that can't even accurately predict tomorrow's temperature, let alone the temperature 50-100 years from now - based on this we're supposed to commit economic suicide? As for 'thousands of scientists have published a conservative assessment', many of these 'scientists' are nothing of the kind - they are bureaucrats and social 'scientists'. What about the many real scientists who sued the U.N. to have their names removed from the final IPCC report to protest its blatant political basis? As for Al Gore, did you know he owns a zinc mine that has been cited and fined for violating environmental guidelines? As for the Nobel Prize committee, by awarding this prize to Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Yasser Arafat, they do a serious disservice to all those who are truly working towards peace. By using the Peace Prize as a way to give George Bush the proverbial finger, they have damaged no one but themselves and have turned the awarding of this previously well-deserved and prestigious prize into nothing more than a joke.
  379. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: For all of you flip posters who seem to regard this as comedy night, your only hope for an audition for 'Just 4 Laughs!', please take your attempts elsewhere.

    Satire helps us all to live with tragic times but yours is misplaced.
  380. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Sarcasm aside (and I have a lot today because of this asinine choice), it appears as the NobelMind has decided Hillary must not go head to head against a Republican. They have just given an endorsement to Gore as the only Democrat they believe can defeat Guiliani.
  381. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: Dave Herzog from Iowa, United States writes:
    'My point was this: Algore is a privilaged rich white boy from Tennessee whose father would have preferred black people riding in the back of the bus.
    Algore is no Martin Luther King who did more for peace and justice in USA that anyone in the 20th century. How does making a stupid movie about something that everybody knows about already have anything to do with peace?'

    The better question is this: How does anything Gore's dad might have preferred concerning black people have anything to do with Al Gore himself, or his convictions or his arguments?

    What was your point, again? That Al Gore is white?
  382. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: For all of you flip posters who seem to regard this as comedy night, your only hope for an audition for 'Just 4 Laughs!', please take your attempts elsewhere.

    Satire helps us all to live with tragic times but yours is misplaced.

    ----

    I find nothing satirical about ManBearPig. I have seen IT.
  383. Sam G from Toronto, Canada writes: This is great news and a real second chance for Al Gore to make something happen. I still think he failed to act when he was vice-president. It is important that he made the global warming a household 'name'.

    Whether global warming is caused by humans is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that human activities create significant pollution and poisoning of the environment. Think Walkerton and poisoned water. You don't need global warming to kill people with industrial activities. Then there is air pollution (breathe in in GTA if you dare on a smog alert day), chemical pollution (GTA waterfront) and now all the tainted food coming from China and elsewhere. It has become 'normal' that our food and air has ingredients that are slowly killing us, causing hard-to-treat diseases (cancers and the ever-mysterious peanut allergy), birth defects... the list goes on. If we just dropped the political jargon and focused on achieving a cleaner environment with cleaner technologies, that would be a huge step forward improving the situation.
  384. Sheila Lanz-Jimenez from San Clemente, United States writes: Congratulations to Al Gore, a well deserved acknowledgment of his explaining the dangers of Global warning to the average person.

    I am amazed at the number of Right Wing people who would rather stick their heads in the sand on this board. What has happened to Canada? It is beginning to sound like Texas and other such backward parts of the U.S. Is that why Harper was elected Prime Minister? He doesn't sound like the sharpest blade in the drawer.

    I suppose that when there is a choice between money and the environment people will always choose money, and fool themselves into believing that everything is just fine.

    I notice that a great many of these people are religious. I wonder why that is.

    Canadian in California
  385. Susan Kennedey from Montreal, Canada writes: Sam G from Toronto, Canada writes: This is great news and a real second chance for Al Gore to make something happen. I still think he failed to act when he was vice-president. It is important that he made the global warming a household 'name'.

    Whether global warming is caused by humans is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that human activities create significant pollution and poisoning of the environment. Think Walkerton and poisoned water. You don't need global warming to kill people with industrial activities. Then there is air pollution (breathe in in GTA if you dare on a smog alert day), chemical pollution (GTA waterfront) and now all the tainted food coming from China and elsewhere. It has become 'normal' that our food and air has ingredients that are slowly killing us, causing hard-to-treat diseases (cancers and the ever-mysterious peanut allergy), birth defects... the list goes on. If we just dropped the political jargon and focused on achieving a cleaner environment with cleaner technologies, that would be a huge step forward improving the situation.

    ___________________________________________________________

    Huh - what are you talking about??
  386. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: A. Quebecer from Canada writes:'What I do not understand is the boat loads of money that is going to be made by the people, companies and countries that develop good solutions to industrial pollution...'

    Not only are the 'boatloads of money' imaginary, the topic is about global warming, not pollution.
  387. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Sam G from Toronto, Canada writes: This is great news and a real second chance for Al Gore to make something happen. I still think he failed to act when he was vice-president. It is important that he made the global warming a household 'name'.

    Whether global warming is caused by humans is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that human activities create significant pollution and poisoning of the environment.

    ----

    Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and is another issue entirely.
  388. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'I find it stunning that GlynnMhor can still make assertions here, shown many times to be wrong, about temperatures.'

    I'm not actually making the assertions, the scientists who study temperatures at places like the Hadley Centre are doing that.

    I only draw people's attention to the actual facts, inconvenient though they might be to the AGW hypesters.
  389. Proud Canadian from Canada writes: Question... Will George Dubya Bush ever share a Nobel Peace Prize with Dick Chenney. That would be interesting. Would it not. I am even prepared to nominate them.
  390. J Kay from Canada writes: Susan Kennedey: There are so many flaws in your comment, it's difficult to know where to begin. First and foremost, predicting or modelling weather is NOT the same as modelling climate; they are significantly different in both scale and sensitivity to input parameters. That you enjoin and confuse the two highlights a lack of understanding of the underlying phenomenon. Climate modelling is far less complex, and less sensitive to local perturbations than weather modelling.

    Second of all, no one anywhere said anything about commiting economic suicide. The only people who make these comments are the denialists, in order to fear monger and avoid any action being taken. The UK has been able to reduce emissions without negatively impacting it's economic growth. A number of nations have had sustained economic growth with lower emissions growth than Canada so it's utterly misleading to equate the two, they need not be. Economic growth and emissions reductions are not mutually exclusive events; one does NOT imply the other despite the continued attempts by denialists to foul the debate with rhetoric.
  391. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Sheila Lanz-Jimenez from San Clemente, United States writes: Congratulations to Al Gore, a well deserved acknowledgment of his explaining the dangers of Global warning to the average person.

    I am amazed at the number of Right Wing people who would rather stick their heads in the sand on this board. What has happened to Canada? It is beginning to sound like Texas and other such backward parts of the U.S. Is that why Harper was elected Prime Minister? He doesn't sound like the sharpest blade in the drawer.

    -----

    Don't forget all the idiots from Australia and India and China. Now, that is where the real idiots are.
  392. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Susan Kennedey from Montreal, Canada writes:'Think Walkerton and poisoned water.'

    If small-town mayors weren't allowed to hire their kin and cronies for water treatment jobs (instead of people competent in the field) places like Walkerton or Kashechewan would have had much better quality water supplies.
  393. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I see that innumeracy still reigns here. 'Susan Kennedey', evidence is measurements presented to the entire world. You clearly haven't understood the models. Nobody is asking for economic suicide; there are lots of good reasons to get efficient rather than demanding new resources.

    I'd like to see your list of scientists who purportedly sued the IPCC for removal from their lists. Please send it to us.

    Al Gore's personal life is irrelevant once you get into the real issues, measurable, model-able and verifiable.

    Peace is about strategy, not about who won the last battle.

    'Watcher', I'd like to hear about the 'doctoring' of the report. As far as I know, it was at a political level rather than a scientific one. Politicians did not want to say to their publics that it's bad. In fact it's worse.
  394. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall - Raw data is useless without the proper knowledge to analyze and interpret it.
  395. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes: Susan Kennedey: There are so many flaws in your comment, it's difficult to know where to begin. First and foremost, predicting or modelling weather is NOT the same as modelling climate; they are significantly different in both scale and sensitivity to input parameters. That you enjoin and confuse the two highlights a lack of understanding of the underlying phenomenon. Climate modelling is far less complex, and less sensitive to local perturbations than weather modelling.

    -----

    If you have actually been following the GW story, you would know that all the inpute parameters for the modelling has been proven incorrect. NASA, as a result, was forced to change the their hottest decade on record to the 1930s.
  396. Susan Kennedey from Montreal, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Susan Kennedey from Montreal, Canada writes:'Think Walkerton and poisoned water.'__________________________________________________________

    GlynnMhor - please note that this was not me. Read the comment again. Thanks.
  397. Accipe Hoc from Montreal, Canada writes: Guns, SUVs and Hooters from United States writes: You can all slag off Gore, but if he turns out to be even 50% correct in his predictions, then he will forever be viewed as a pioneer and a forward thinker. I think it's fair to say that the odds of Gore being 50% correct--if you look at the science--are about 100%.
    ------------------------------------------------

    If he's 50% correct, we're all dead
  398. Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: This is just another step in his elevation to sainthood. This just goes to show that supposedly intellegent people can be fooled most of the time.
  399. J. Collins from United Kingdom writes: D B from Canada writes: It makes sense that the right-wingnuts wallow in denial with their heads in the tarsands about environmental problems.

    You are either a fool or a Liberal sheep. Kyoto targets are impossible to meet and you know that. Gore is a lying cheat. Chretien signed the Kyoto with no thought on how it could be done. The only thought he had was lwet's leave this pile of manure for Paul Martin. Alberta will shutdown the oil sands the day after you idiots shut down the care industry. It will never happen and you know it.
  400. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: GlynnMhor, thst's crap and you know it.

    'Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'I find it stunning that GlynnMhor can still make assertions here, shown many times to be wrong, about temperatures.'

    I'm not actually making the assertions, the scientists who study temperatures at places like the Hadley Centre are doing that.

    I only draw people's attention to the actual facts, inconvenient though they might be to the AGW hypesters.'

    You have been rebutted so many times on this issue, with fact, that I seriously wonder whether you might be some kind of response-bot.
  401. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor of Skywall - Raw data is useless without the proper knowledge to analyze and interpret it.'

    And what sort of 'proper knowlege' does it take to claim the globe is still warming, even as temperatures are stable or even dropping slightly?

    And especially when this is occuring in the teeth of continually increasing AGHG emissions and concentrations.
  402. Susan Kennedey from Montreal, Canada writes: J Kay - so anyone who is sceptical of the 'sky-is falling' scenario is a 'denier'. Kind of like a Holocaust denier, but in this case we're 'denying' events that have yet to occur. Yuo want to model climate rather than weather - fine. Show me proof that you can accurately do this in a prospective rather than retrospecive manner.
  403. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: A one-trick pony. Johnny one-note.

    GlynnMhor, move into reality, please.
  404. Accipe Hoc from Montreal, Canada writes: It's 8 degrees here in Mtl today....global warming my butt!
  405. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall - Climatology and atmospheric physics among other things. Simply looking at the raw data is ignorant.
  406. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: NASA just readjusted their hottest decade to the 1930s because of an error found in the modelling software. As a result, temperatures have been decreasing even as CO2 emissions have increased. This Nobel nonsense has nothing to do with world peace or global warmening or manbearpig: it is a trophy for Gore to hit Hillary over the head with. Someone very high up has decided that Hillary cannot win. Of course, I am only guessing on this, but I think Gore will announce his candidacy within weeks.
  407. J Kay from Canada writes: Michael Jahonneson: I'm aware of the change that NASA undertook with regards to the data. I'm also aware that it has no overall impact on any of the climate modelling. All it does it change when the hottest year on record was, it doesnt however alter the model predictions or mean temperature variation in any significant way and thus does not nullify the IPCC report.
    I'm also aware of the 'blogger' who brought this discrepency to the attention of NASA and aware that he has made numerous factual errors in his own analysis as well, especially in regards to temperature reconstructions.
  408. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880
  409. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor, that's crap and you know it.'

    Look at the data, maybe. Then you'll be able to see the truth of the matter.

    Just wildly claiming it's crap doesn't really cut it.

    The pretty graphs clearly show slight cooling:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf

    While the monthly data tables show the same, only in more detail:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

    If you think that's 'crap', go complain to the climatologists of the Hadley Centre who compile the global averages.

    BTW, August 2007 was the coolest August since 2000, with a temperature anomaly of 0.357 degrees above the nominal average, compared to a range of 0.419-0.523 for the preceding five years.
  410. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor of Skywall -Simply looking at the raw data is ignorant.'

    Admitting that the data themselves are of such little importance to your AGW religion does nothing to convince people to join the cult.

    Face the facts, people, the Earth isn't currently warming, and hasn't been doing so since March 2001.
  411. Alex MacLean from Toronto, Canada writes: Gore has never claimed to be a scientist, and wasn't awarded the Nobel Prize for science, so the charge that he was an inappropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize falls flat. What he promoted in his film and his other work over the years was the scientific consensus that global warming was happening and that anthropogenic factors were accelerating it. His particular contribution was tying the threads together, and making it into a personal and political challenge. He has done that better than anyone else, and by better, I mean more accessibly. He has raised the level of debate and putting solving this within our grasp. For that alone, for bringing you and me and anyone else who cares to pay attention into the debate, he deserves this prize.
  412. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: I would like to thank the Goracle for bringing peace to this board.
  413. J Kay from Canada writes: Susan Kennedey: Funny, you suggest anthropogenic global warming is a 'sky-is-falling' fairy tale and yet you espouse an economic sky-is-falling if people believe it. Just a bit of a hypocritical stance isnt it?


    There is legitimate criticism of climate science and then there is a camp of 'skeptics' who do nothing other than post recycled garbage off of websites like junkscience, who have little understanding of the issues and simply attempt to drowned out reasoned intelligent debate.


    On what basis do you question the models used for studying global warming? You incorrectly asserted above that it was akin to weather modelling, which it is not, and then go on to ask for prospective 'proof' of their accuracy, a test which is rather difficult, given that the only way one can do so is to make predictions with the models and wait to see if they are true. So what one does with any model, is to backtest the model against what is known. Given historical data, how would the model predict what we have in fact observed over the past 100 years if we provide the model the input data of 100 years ago instead of today. If the model can accurately predict, within reasonable error bounds what we have observed then we have some evidence that the model works. This approach is and has been used in every single field of science and is not special to climate science.
  414. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall - Twisting my words is simply admitting that you're wrong. I never implied that the data was of 'such little importance'. I sid that raw data by itself is not useful. You should spend more time reading the material the HadleyCentre publishes and less time playing video games.
  415. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: J Kay from Canada: The input data has been collected primarlily from U.S. sites only, as the U.S. has the most reliable data going back a hunded years. However, several idiots decided to research those stations and found that many are on parking lots and sitting next to air conditioners. (I won't even get into the disaster of trying to prove global climate trends pulled mostly from one country.)

    Quite feeding me b.s. by saying us heretics are delusional. Are these photoshopped?

    http://www.surfacestations.org/
  416. J Kay from Canada writes: GlynnMhor: Did it escape your carefully crafted skeptical post that you noted that August 2007 was still 0.357 degrees above the nominal average? That is it was still hotten than 'normal', even if it was perhaps cooler than last year. Are you actually suggesting the in order for one to accept anthropogenic global warming as valid that temperatures in any given location anywhere on the planet must increase year after year and that even a global mean field temperature as well must do so, without considering possible mitigating effects? I surely hope that isn't the case otherwise you're all three monkeys in one.
  417. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes:'If the model can accurately predict, within reasonable error bounds what we have observed then we have some evidence that the model works.'

    And we can clearly see from the IPCC's figure 9.5 that the models smooth out the 1880-1910 cooling, the 1910-1940 warming, and the subsequent cooling until 1962 (the Agung eruption) to have instead a single upward slope of gentler warming.

    In reality, the 1910-1940 warming was as steep as the 1970-2000 warming (0.5 degrees over 30 years), yet the models behave as if none of that happened.

    In clearer terms, we have little evidence that 'the models work' for past known ups-and-downs of temperature, and considerable evidence that they do not.

    That being the case, depending on the same models to predict future temperatures is at best silly.
  418. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes: 'Are you actually suggesting the in order for one to accept anthropogenic global warming as valid that temperatures in any given location anywhere on the planet must increase year after year...'

    That is what the word 'warming' means; increasing in temperature.

    The AGW hypothesis holds that temperatures are driven upward as AGHG concentrations increase. AGHG concentrations have increased continually since 2000, yet temperatures have quite clearly not done so.

    It doesn't look good when the predictions of an hypothesis fail to come true.
  419. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Here is one of hundreds of recording stations:

    http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=660

    Notice how the station is in close proximity to heat-emitting buildings and the arse side of an AC unit.
  420. Yu Mi from Windsor, Canada writes: What does it have to do with peace? It should be renamed the Nobel Politics Prize. This is just anti-Bush backlash.
  421. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Another one sitting in a gravel parking lot:

    http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=24456
  422. Graham Tatarchuk from Canada writes: Oh thats real smart. Award the Nobel Peace prize to a guy who used a crappy movie full of unproven facts and half truths the nobel peace prize. Al Gore shut your mouth and stop instilling fear in the population over something that is extremely unlikely to happen. You are not a prophet Al Gore. You are an idiot.
  423. Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: Bob Beal from Edmonton. Purchase or borrow a book called 'MELTDOWN' and read it to understand why the Scientific community lauds the concept of global warming caused by mankind. The book is authored by Patrick J.Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute in Washington DC. Since the book is not in concert with mainstream mythology it can be dificult to find. I would suggest www.nbnbooks.com as a starting point. I shared you puzzlement but after reading Mr Michaels' book, all public indications are that he accurately analyzed the situation.
  424. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Yu Mi from Windsor, Canada writes: What does it have to do with peace? It should be renamed the Nobel Politics Prize. This is just anti-Bush backlash.

    -----

    The world collective is afraid Hillary will lose; the awarding of the prize is the prelude before al-Gore's running.
  425. Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: From The Times Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment: Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday. An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London. Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film,” he said in his ruling. “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-Presi-dent, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”
  426. J Kay from Canada writes: Michael Johanneson: You post a link to a website showing only US stations and comment about earth island heat effects, which are well known to climate scientists and accounted for in the data acquisition. One does not need to have a uniform, homogenuous distribution of source sites in order to develop models or predicitions. There are numeruosu non-linear interpolation algorithms used to fill in data gaps in all fields of science.

    Moreover, there are a number of other sources of temperature data, including temperature reconstructions from a number of other sources (ice cores, dendrochronology, etc) which allow one to reconstruct past temperature and climate profiles.

    The problem with having a reasoned debate herein on this topic is there are far to many people who simply wish to drowned out the debate, to avoid any discussion and thus any possible shift to their prevailing worldview.
  427. Peter Glenn from Canada writes: Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Peter Glenn, you are outright wrong. The evidence is in.

    ACTUALLY, the evidence isn't in. This is exactly the type of response I was writing about previously. Have you ever actually questioned the science that you seem so convinced of? Likely not. Do some independent research and you will find out that things aren't always as people like Gore assert. Have an open mind. Few people dispute that the Earths' temperature is rising, but the cause is certainly debatable.

    I stated before - a major premise of the global warming gurus is the relationship b/n CO2 levels and the rising temp. DO SOME RESEARCH YOURSELF AND YOU WILL FIND THIS IS A COMPLETELY INNACURATE PREMISE.
  428. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada: Does this book 'Meltdown' discuss the absurd anomies of placing recording stations in parking lots?

    http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=24456
  429. winston blowhard from Oshawa Ont., Canada writes: Now that Al Gore has won the Nobel prize, the only thing he can do now is run for the U.S. presidency. Who can do more to stem the tide of global warming than the president of the U.S.?. The way I look at it, if Al doesn't run for president, than he feels the problem isn't really all that bad.
  430. J Kay from Canada writes: GlynnMhor: Wow ok, I was giving you more credit than I should I guess. That global increases in ghg emissions, is considered central to the position for anthropogenic global 'warming' does NOT mean that the effects are a) linear or b) solely due to GHGs. To assert that this is what si meant by 'global warming' is to completely misrepresent the scientific precepts underlying the theory. The fact is that the system dynamics are NOT linear, nor acting in isolation so NO it is not the case nor does is it required that temperature continues to increase year over year in a given location or even globally.
  431. Some Guy from Canada writes: ' Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: NASA just readjusted their hottest decade to the 1930s because of an error found in the modelling software.'

    As has been posted before, NASA adjusted the average temperature for the US by .1 degree making 1934 slightly warmer than 1998 in the US. Since the US represents a small fraction of the globe, global temperatures remain unchanged, the decade from 1998 to 2007 is the warmest on record for the last 1000 years and probably the last 2000.

    Please remember before posting that canard again, the issue is global warming, not US warming.
  432. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: J Kay from Canada: Well, re ice cores, one doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to know that each time the earth emerged from an ice age, the earth experienced global warming. Further, I would say at least 80-90% of the instruments used to record world temps in the last 100 years were in fact based on American sensors. Those sensors and the data they give are bunk. Call me an unedumacated hick, but even I can see that a sensor sitting on a parking lot will yield squirelly data.

    So, I assume the algorithms take into consideration the severely flawed input data? Is that why Hansen refused until 6 WEEKS ago to release the source code for his software?
  433. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: J Kay - Given that he cannot understand what is wrong with looking at raw data in isolation, I fear that it will be difficult to get any degree of reasoned response.
  434. Brian Martin from Georgetown, Canada writes: The biggest beef that I have with Gore and An Inconvenient Truth, is that he seems to either have missed the real problem or he is side-stepping it. The real problem is economic in nature and cannot be remedied by measures such as Kyoto. The fact is that our banking system creates money (debt) with every new loan made. Real assets are used to collateralize obligations where nothing more than a stroke of the pen was required to 'create' the mony. Interest is owed and never created so aggregate debt diverges from the money supply. This is inflationary. At this moment, in Countries the world over, debt exceeds the money supply by multiples of 10 or more. What does this have to do with Global Warming you ask? Simple, in the current Fiat-money system that exists globally, liquidity (read, more debt) must be maintained in order to stave off economic collapse. The way central banks do this is by manipulating interest rates to encourage or discourage levels of borrowing (consumption). The past decade has seen exceptionally low interest rates and therefore exceptionally high consumption, to the point where it becomes harder and harder for banks to find credit-worthy individuals to continue to borrow money. Nevertheless, credit keeps expanding and we continue our disposable consumer society. Now magnify this problem by over-population and burgeoning economies in India and China and it should be easy to see that all of this is unsustainable in the long-term. This is why I find it hypocritical of Mr. Gore to explain away his huge house etc. by saying that he is carbon neutral. He is just perpetuating the nonsense that we can continue to consume resources at the rate we do, without having a negative environmental impact. We either need to consume less or have fewer consumers.
  435. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Some Guy from Canada writes: Since the US represents a small fraction of the globe, global temperatures remain unchanged, the decade from 1998 to 2007 is the warmest on record for the last 1000 years and probably the last 2000.

    -----

    Canard? Just about the only country with 'accurate' measurements since the early 1900s was America, so they use primarily US data to plot global warming. And these sites are SEVERELY flawed. And, no, the warmest decade was the 1930s and that is reflected on the NASA website.

    Also, you forgot the Middle Age Warming Period that were hotter than today.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F06%2Fnclim06.xml
  436. Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: Michael Jahonneson. I would not for one minute endeavour to interpret scientific information presented in the book but can assure you and all other bloggers that the absurdity you have mentioned is not found in the book. The science around global warming was not what I was referring to but rather the authors conclusions as to the reasons why many in the scientific community appear to support the theories that global warming is occurring, that mankind is responsible and that it is apocalyptic in nature. Please access a copy and read it, it will be well worth the effort regardless of your position on the theories.
  437. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Call me old-fashioned, but I still believe that the sun causes global warming.

    For those who still cling to this belief in anthropogenic global warming, recognize it for what it is: a theory. And there are still major elements of the theory that are flawed. In jury terms, they call that reasonable doubt. People aren't hung when there is reasonable doubt and not should economies commit suicide on reasonable doubt.

    That said, al-Gore got his shiny medal for advancing world peace. That theory goes like this: if his awareness propaganda works, there will eventually be less conflict on the planet. He was given an award for events that might or might not happen in the future. Lucky gig if you can get it.
  438. Ajay Pradhan from Canada writes: Congratulations, Al.

    It's a richly deserved recognition.
  439. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: I will add it to my ever-growing list of titles I must read. Thanks and keep you head above water! LOL
  440. Brian Martin from Georgetown, Canada writes: As an example. You buy a hybrid instead of an all gas vehicle and you feel pretty good about the economic choice you've made. Pretty green right? Hybrids require the use of Rare Earth Elements (REE's) for their electronic components as well as catalytic converters. REE's are, well, rare. You have to dig up and process literally hundreds of tonnes of rock to extract a pound of REE's. If everyone in the world switched to a hybrid, it would simply change the source of the problem from oil to REE's. The same problem exists for all kinds of resources. The only way to reverse the damage being wrought to the environment, irrespective of the debate about AGW vs GW, is to decrease aggregate consumption. Fewer people and a sustainable economic model are required.
  441. ss dd from vancouver, Canada writes: Here's a nice rebuke of the whole 'global warming' joke, with references and all that:

    http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/warm.htm#w1w1

    I guess the guys singing hymns to Gore/IPCC shall just reply with something stupid like 'it doesn't matter, because the debate is over' or 'the scientists had all spoken'... :-)
  442. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Brian Martin from Georgetown, Canada writes: Fewer people and a sustainable economic model are required.

    ----

    Well, war works to achieve that goal. But then so does increased abortions. Or if we all just went gay for Mother Earth. Less carbon-based lifeforms is good!
  443. myna johnstone from Canada writes: Gore's utility bill is $30,000 a year .He uses 221,000kwh which is 20 times the National average.These figures are from the NES. National Electric Service
  444. Mark From BC from Canada writes: So they awarded a Nobel Prize for his ranting and raving about the manbearpig
  445. James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: That a politician can win a so-called prestigious award for a science-based topic is the height of absurdity, and does nothing but cheapen and demean the idea behind the Nobel Peace Prize.
  446. Susan Kennedey from Montreal, Canada writes: Brian Martin from Georgetown, Canada writes: As an example. You buy a hybrid instead of an all gas vehicle and you feel pretty good about the economic choice you've made. Pretty green right? Hybrids require the use of Rare Earth Elements (REE's) for their electronic components as well as catalytic converters. REE's are, well, rare. You have to dig up and process literally hundreds of tonnes of rock to extract a pound of REE's. If everyone in the world switched to a hybrid, it would simply change the source of the problem from oil to REE's. The same problem exists for all kinds of resources. The only way to reverse the damage being wrought to the environment, irrespective of the debate about AGW vs GW, is to decrease aggregate consumption. Fewer people and a sustainable economic model are required. ________________________________________________________________________________Brian - you should lead by example especially regarding 'fewer people...are required'.
  447. Some Guy from Canada writes: 'Just about the only country with 'accurate' measurements since the early 1900s was America'
    Rubbish. The Brits were well ahead of the Americans in this field from the latter half of the 19th century into the early 20th. The sun never set on British meteorological observatories. Other industrialized European countries took readings in both their home countries and their colonies. From the late 19th century the Danes maintained a string of observatories around the coast of Greenland, Iceland, and the Orkneys.

    Look at the data the GlynnMohr keeps posting from CRU or look at NCDC's data. The 1930's were marginally warmer the the 1990's for the US only, not for the world. Indirect evidence, the dust bowl was limited to western North America and not elsewhere. The first decade of the 21st century, unless there is a dramatic temperature decline in the next three years, will eclipse both the 1990's globally and the 1930's for the US.

    As for the Medieval Warm Period being the warmest in the last 1000 years, that's another canard. It is based on indirect and anecdotal evidence collected for areas bordering the North Atlantic and the Gulf Stream. As soon as similar evidence for the rest of the globe is gathered, the global temperature is nowhere near that high. It is a Eurocentric artifact.

    In 2002, the Bush administration commissioned the National Academy to put together a panel to examine the issue of AGW. Their first report in 2006 concluded what I stated above, the global temperature in the 1990's was warmer than any decade in the last 1000 years and probably the warmest in the last 2000 years.
  448. The Bull from Canada writes: I think Mats Sundin should get one too.
  449. Watcher 1983 from Just around the corner, Canada writes: Sheila Lanz-Jimenez from San Clemente, I seem to recall that Al Gore is a religious person.
  450. Bill Shapiro from Saskatoon, Canada writes: What a crock! Al Gore who lives in a Nashville mansion that consumes 20 times the amount of energy that an average U.S home consumes. You would think this guy would live what he preaches. Al Gore a multi millionaire who pockets $125,000. plus all expenses for each one of his speaking engagements. With his wealth, one would think that he might fight the cause from the goodness of his heart.......I recall the scare in the 70's that Mother Earth was entering a cooling period and we were destined for another ice Age. Today's scare of global warming is just as BOGUS as the earth entering an Ice Age in the 70's.
  451. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: The Bull from Canada writes: I think Mats Sundin should get one too.

    *Sorry I disagree and this may an 'INCONVENIENT TRUTH' for you to hear, Bull - the award should be made to ALL TO MAPLE LEAF FANS in consideration for the cr*ppy teams they have put up up for this past 40 years!!!*
  452. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Watcher 1983: You ask if I have ever heard of the dustbowl of the 1930s. As it happens, I have heard of it. At university, I teach about it. What would you like to know? That Canadian annual wheat production (the vast bulk of it on the prairies) fell from a 1920s high of 566,726,000 bushels to a 1930s low of 180,210,000 bushels? That labour income in Alberta fell from a 1920s high of $164 million to a 1930s low of $97 million? Communist Party activity in the relief camps? The On to Ottawa Trek? I can also do locust infestations in the 1870s (nicely described in Laura Ingalls' Little House on the Prairie books) and the effects of the Krackatoa volcano on crop yields in the Canadian West in 1884.

    But you can't jump from there to your assertion that there is 'no supportable science behind manmade global warming.' Every major scientific organization in the western world says that manmade global warming is a real, present, and increasing problem. Are they all part of some socialist plot?
  453. Some Guy from Canada writes: Rob R, that would be the Nobel Prize for masochism:)
  454. J Kay from Canada writes: Michael Jahonneson: I'm not quite sure what ice core reconstructions have to do with rocket scientists or ice ages, so perhaps you'll elaborate. Ice cores, like coral reefs, tree rings and other things provide proxies for past climate events which can be used to construct past temperature for places that did not have a weather recording station.

    Could you please back up your assertion that a) most of the temperature data is american b) virtually all temperature sensors used worldwide were an American design and thus flawed c) and that all of these sites are flawed. As I noted the earth heat island effect is well known to NASA and those studying climate science. It is accounted for in reconstructing data, and is verified by numerous sources. That is pretty much no matter what method one uses for developing temperature reconstructions they all agree pretty closely, which lends great weight to the fact that the temperature reconstructions are accurate.

    Do you think the world only began to modernize in 1900 after the US began to emerge economically? One wonder what Europe was doing back then.
  455. Ben USMC from United States writes:

    Good....Now can someone please, PLEASE raise my taxes now!
  456. Starting Over from Canada writes: Wow. Al can use the prize money to start a GREEN carbon credit trading company.
  457. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: *TO BOB BEAL:
    Bob you posed a question to another poster earlier today, who was questioning Gore's position on the ACP Board and the funding of it. You suggested (fairly) that he should get the facts off the ACP website before commenting on its finances. I guess you missed my previous post that stated that I had looked 'high and low' on their website for financial disclosure or financial statements but couldn't find any! I asked if you have seen the data on their site as I'd like to see it too! By the way, I emailed them (ACP) this morning about this and 8 hours later no reply. So if you know where the financial data link is, please post it here so we can all se it! *
  458. The Bull from Canada writes: touche, Rob R

    touche
  459. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: Starting Over from Canada writes: Wow. Al can use the prize money to start a GREEN carbon credit trading company.

    *Too late - Al and his front NFP, ACP, have bought up all the shares in these money laundering ventures.*
  460. M J from Canada writes: WOW... so that's what it takes to win a nobel prize. Do a film, call it a documentary, use the basis of all of your analogies on the word 'IF'. I guess he decided that trying to come off as a Benny Hinn would not work for him, he needed to create another religion. Criteria for the fire and brimstone preacher, look pretty doing it, living in total hyprocrisy, rake in oodles of money and not practising what you preach. Issues as important as climate and environmental protection are far too important to be left with hypocritical policitians such as Mr. Gore. If he seriously believes the world is on the verge of disaster, why did he not do something about it during the 8 years he spent in the White House, raise the warning bells something....but alas nothing, well at least not until he could make some serious money at it.
  461. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Rob R: I would look at whatever U.S. agency monitors these things. Most non-profits of any sort do not post their detailed financial statements on their websites (I have looked in different situations than this one). In Canada, the information is publicly available, though I am not sure it is posted on the Net. It was a good idea to email Gore's organization. They may well respond. As I said, I have not a clue what the answer might be, but I would be very interested in knowing. You might also want to search for newspaper articles about Gore's organization, but that might take a lot of time.
  462. Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: Brian Martin from Georgetown, Canada writes: The biggest beef that I have with Gore and An Inconvenient Truth, is that he seems to either have missed the real problem or he is side-stepping it. The real problem is economic in nature and cannot be remedied by measures such as Kyoto.
    >>>Brian to tell the truth he have to say that the people like hin are the problem. People living in large houses, eating like pigs, travelling in the private jets, and asking 125K per speech. They tend to spend it that's why they charge it in the first place. Arafat was a great symbol of the peacemaker and Al Gore is a great symbol of the environmentally friendly politician.
  463. Rob R from Mississauga, Canada writes: Bob Beal - thanks Bob! I know that a lot of the reputable charities/NPOs up here in Canada will post full financial disclosure - even David Suzuki does so I would have thought that a major US NFP like ACP would want to give full disclosure too as it is so high profile! It will be interesting to see if they respond to my question. I do feel uneasy when someone heads up a large NFP and gives such a large amount to something he essentially controls - $1.5 million still pays for a lot of first class jet setting and self-promotion especially in an election year coming up!
  464. Andrea Timmons from Kingston, Canada writes: Glad Al won a nobel peace prize for his advocacy for our planet, whether he's a scientist or not.
    The way I see the political climate in Canada, I'm voting for & suppoting the Green Party!
    We can forget all the other issues if we continue to ignore/downplay our earth's demise. We can't survive without it. We can survive without a lot of other things.
    We'd save billions of dollars in health care costs alone if we focused on cleaning up the environment & conserving our natural resources instead of continuing to practice our over consumption of the harmful stuff big business panders to us to get richer at the expense of our home & acting like Canada was geographically located on another planet & not part of a global ecological system being destroyed in alarming & vast ways because we don't understand its intrisinic value.
  465. Armchair Politician from Kelowna, Canada writes: What a desperation move! The one good thing...perhaps someone will nominate me, (I should surely win) even if I didn't invent the internet!
  466. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Rob: I looked at the Suzuki Foundation. It posts its annual reports, as most of these organizations do, but they do not post the financial breakdowns.

    I did a quick Google on Gore's organization and found nothing substantial. I am somewhat surprised that an enterprising newspaper reporter does not seem to have done an indepth piece given all the off-the-cuff comment about Gore profitting from this and being a hypocrite, etc. While I admire what he has accomplished in this field, I would like to see an objective analysis of all this, if for no other reason than to stop or slow the uninformed comments.
  467. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I commend you 'ss dd', for having posted a link that we all can review. It's food for thought and I'll not try to draw conclusions right now from it but I shall read it.
  468. A Reader from Canada writes: The issue of global warming definately is connected with world piece, as it is only one of the many symptoms that our globalized economy is far from sustainable, and it is almsot certain that the wars of the 21st century (including Iraq) will be over water and energy resources- and if global warming or other environmental problems get serious enough, it could also lead to wars. Any move towards sustainability now will greatly facilitate peace in the futurem and in that regard, the IPCC certainly deserves this prize. Unfortunately, Al Gore has taken this genuine and non-partisian issue and turned it into a political one, (not totally his fault- can't blame him for his political past, but his refusal to find dialoge with the right wing (whereas bill clinton always apears with George Bush Sr. to make sure the issues are clearly above poltiics) and distortions in his 'science' and hypocritical lifestyle certainly don't help ) making it much more difficult to find consensus and take action on this issue. A simple test for a self-claimed environmentalist's integrity and sincerity is the way they present nuclear power- its clear that global warming could be signficantly curtailed immediately by displacing other fuels with nuclear power, producing other environmental costs in the process, namely spent fuel- Someone with integrity would do a cost-benefit analysis of these two environmental effects, and use scientific arguements to show which one is worse. Someone who is taking advantage of environmental issues to drive other political or social issues (decentralization, socialism are some of the big ones), or for self-interest would immediately discount that nuclear power can offer a solution, and avoid the issue by spreading irrational fears about the safety and economics of nuclear power.
  469. A Reader from Canada writes: Another simple test for a so-called environmentalist is how they frame the issue- The real problem with global warming is that our lifestyles energy at a higher rate than the earth can support, and making change will likely mean a reduction in living standards such as smaller house, no car, lower material consumption, etc- The USA, with 4.5% of the word's population, produces 22% of the world's greanhouse gas emissions (and much more if you include the factories in China producing goods for the US, and Canada is even worse on a per-capita basis) An honest environmentalist would try and convince the population to change their own way of life to make themselves more sustainable, while being honest about the costs and trying to build a genuine environmental concious to pressure politicians to move towards change. A dishonest environmentalist will frame the issue entirely as poltiical debate, demanding governments and industy to take action, without being upfront about the costs such an action would have on the economy and without demanding individuals take the same action.
  470. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes: 'That global increases in ghg emissions, is considered central to the position for anthropogenic global 'warming' does NOT mean that the effects are a) linear or b) solely due to GHGs.'

    While I could agree with 'a', the IPCC's figure 9.5 illustrating the foundation of their attribution of global warming to AGHGs states flat out that anthropogenic forcings are responsible for the heating shown in the models that (sort of) match the observed data from 1970-2000.

    While vagaries of a few years length might be expected and tolerable, we're getting to the point (almost seven years) where the assumptions break down. Normally in science in general, when data fail to support an hypothesis, the hypothesis is re-examined and modified. The failures of the models for 1900-1962, plus those we see now mean that it's well past time to take on doubts.
  471. Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: Reader from Canada writes: A dishonest environmentalist will frame the issue entirely as poltiical debate, demanding governments and industy to take action, without being upfront about the costs such an action would have on the economy and without demanding individuals take the same action.
    >>>Still the money is good! (1.5 Million). And all Hollywood friends find you cute and give you Oscar for supporting their own hypocrisy.
  472. Mike McFae from Canada writes: James , your warning that people will be fighting each other for food and water is the type of hysteria that causes sane people to cringe. Didn't you see that in a Kevin Costner movie ? That's the problem with a lot of the GW alarmists , they watch movies like The Day After Tomorrow and run to their keyboards to warn all earthlings and attack the ' deniers '. Climate change is serious stuff and should be taken seriously, devoid of all this silly hysteria. The Statue of Liberty will not be submerged anytime soon and - as a British judge recently ruled after listening to various experts - Al Gore's assertion that sea levels will rise 23 feet in the near future is groundless and ' distinctly alarming '.
  473. Mike McFae from Canada writes: Al Gore did not say that he invented the Internet . What he did say was as follows ' I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet '. Just presenting the facts to clear up any confusion.
  474. bill williams from Guelph, Canada writes: People, businesses, and governments--even the reluctant ones--are finally starting to realize that they have to move on this. Congratulations to the IPCC on their work in putting together the data on anthropogenic global warming over all these years, and congratulations to Al Gore for being SO important for getting people to look seriously at this threat to our life on the planet.

    The NPP c'tee have, in recent decisions, strayed from a strict adherence to 'peace' criterion in awarding the prize, but this time they are bestowing the honour on people who are doing something that stands a chance of having a direct impact on peace since AGW will almost certainly stress and punish societies to the point of beligerance.
  475. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: All your carbon credits are belong to us. This strikes me as another bullshit act of political theater and I am dismayed that this nonsense is being presented as a fact, instead of as a theory! Sorry, folks, but I'm in the software business and if anyone tells me they have perfected a global climate predictor machine, I will laugh at them. Laugh. Our modeling technologies for such complex global systems will need another 50 years of development before they are even remotely accurate. This is a massive con job to trigger deindustrialization of the West or some other dream concocted by the elites of world socialism. And the fact that journalists, with absolutely zero technical competence, are driving this propaganda say more than anything.
  476. Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: bill williams from Guelph, Canada writes: and congratulations to Al Gore for being SO important for getting people to look seriously at this threat to our life on the planet.
    >>>Great! Let's all follow Al Gore example. Lets tell to all our friends about the global warming danger while increasing our own contribution to the global warming. If the message is important but the real actions not lets triple our lips service contribution.
  477. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: The irony is that Bush gets labeled as a fear-mongerer for worrying about terrorism (which has happened!), and Gore gets labeled as a visionary (prophet!) for his fear-mongering. LOL
  478. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: When Western Canada separates from Canada, we can thank the Goreacle for bringing peace to Canada.
  479. Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: His next Nobel will be for the outstanding contribution in causing the Global warming. Millions of people will learn from him that they can continue destroying this Planet while expressing their fake concerns and while being angry at the industry that after all do nothing else but answer their demands for new stuff every day.
  480. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Look at 3 of the 5 who voted for the Goreacle: ------ Geir Lundestad (Secretary) Director of Nobel Institute and Historian. His main publications are: The American Non-Policy Towards Eastern Europe 1943-1947 (1975), America, Scandinavia and the Cold War 1945-1949 (1980), East, West, North, South. Major Developments in International Politics since 1945. (First Norwegian Edition in 1985, later revised, Fifth Edition 2004), 'Empire' by integration: the United States and European integration 1945-1997 (1998). ----- Berge Ragnar Furre (Member) Historian, Professor of Theology, and politician from the Socialist Left Party. The Socialist Left Party is left by European standards--it was formerly a Communist party. Today though, like most formerly communist parties, the Socialist Left Party is part of the Red-Green coalitions so common in Europe. ----- Sissel Marie Rřnbeck (Member) Deputy Director, Directorate for Cultural Heritage. Former director of the Social Democratic Youth (Labour's youth group) and a former cabinet minister in the Labour led government. The Labour Party has long been a main political party in Norway and was founded as a Marxist party, but are now merely socialists and advocates of an extensive welfare state. They now govern Norway as part of a center-left-green alliance.
  481. Mr X from Edmonton, Canada writes: 'Bill M from Canada writes: What exactly does a documentary on the climate have to do with world peace? Have they stopped the slaughter in dafur because of this movie?'

    Actually former Democratic President Jimmy Carter recently gave credit to George W. Bush on the Larry King show for putting together the current peace agreements in Darfur. I could not believe it. I have not seen this anywhere else in print or on TV.
  482. Mr X from Edmonton, Canada writes: I found that Al Gore's documentary while interesting was half about the environment and half about Al Gore. I think that he had all the opportunity in the world to do something about climate change when he and Bill were in power, but they did very little.
  483. Just A Guy from Toronto, Canada writes: While I am sure Gore is excited about his award I don't know if that is an excuse for the media to simply ignore the recent ruling from a UK judge that his mockumentary has at least 9 falsehoods. This judge even stated the errors were made in

    “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming.

    While I am happy that more attention has been placed on an environment man has damaged, the brunt of the attention should have been placed on something we can actually control instead of the cyclical behaviour of nature.

    That said...the sheep are still the sheep and while many will no doubt spout how intelligent they are, they have hooked onto one thought process and that is more damaging than the supposed c02=warmer weather theory.
  484. Mr X from Edmonton, Canada writes: 'JD Wood from Toronto, Canada writes: ...The important lesson for people like Stephen Harper here is that they need to focus on science and scientific understanding, instead of religious doctrine that has so far been the controlling factor in their tenure.'

    Can you show any proof to backup your claims? I don't believe I have ever heard Harper talk or hint about religious doctrine.
  485. Darth Bobo from Canada writes: Now that Saint Gore has been awarded his wings and halo he'll be making a run for the White House next.
  486. Helen Highwater from Courtenay, Canada writes: I don't know why the author felt it necessary to quote that idiot Bjorn Lomborg. A zillion people agree with Gore's analysis, but Mellgren had to dredge up one of the few people on the planet who doesn't. Lomborg takes every opportunity he can find to dump on Gore. If this is 'balanced reporting' who needs it.
  487. joe kelly from Canada writes: Oh geez, give the man his due.
    Unlike 95% of the population who whine and whinge from the comfort of their keyboard, he actually got off his as* and did something. So the documentary is flawed --- big deal --- what piece of scientific theory/exposition isn't? He's expressing opinions and provoking debate. Debate is good. His personal style is a little fatuous, but the issue is real, even if the prescriptions are controversial. Even the National Post (Kay) gave him his due a few months back. Possibly Stephen Lewis would have made a more altruistic choice for a 'peace' prize, and still may one day.
  488. Dennis sinneD. from Calgary, Canada writes: Gore's 'win' sullies the reputation of the Nobel Prize.
  489. Ajay Pradhan from Canada writes: So, the sore conservatives are unhappy that Steven Harper or George Bush didn't win a Nobel? Well, no matter how much they wish, neither Harper nor Bush has proven to be as committed or visionary as Al Gore has to and about issues he cares for. Gore championed environmental issues in the late 70's and throughout the 80s, when environmental issues did not attract the world attention. He has won the Novel not becuase he is a scientist, but because of the commitment and passion he has displayed in bringing the environmental issue, in particular the global warming issue, to the forefront of public debate and, yes, the political arena. Those who whine that he's not a scientist and so doesn't deserve the Nobel should pause, think (yeah, think, if you can) and realize that an airline pilot doesn't have to be an airline engineer. different people have different role. Gore didn't invent nor did he claim to invent the Internet. It was the media that distorted that issue and the conservatives whipped it up. Regardless of the ridicule that the conservatives like to display on this issue, Gore, in fact, 'was involved in the development and mainstreaming of the Internet as both senator and Vice President.' (Wikipedia) If the conservatives really want to see the light, you can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore and read what Vint Cert and Bob Kahn (the Internet pioneers) have to say about Al Gore. They both acknowledge Gore's role in bringing Internet to the desktop and fingertip of everyone, including the sore conservatives. So, stop whining, conservatives... and stop dreaming that the next Nobel will be awarded to Bush or Harper.
  490. joe kelly from Canada writes: Dennis sinneD. from Calgary, Canada writes: Gore's 'win' sullies the reputation of the Nobel Prize.

    Gee Dennis, and where would that place the Noble Prize Awards for Yasser Arafat and Menachem Begin?
  491. tom h from Canada writes: Bjorn Lomborg is a statistician, not an environmentalist, and not a scientist. His books are based purely on statistical sleight-of-hand, and are ignored by any scientist worth his or her salt.

    'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'
  492. Joel Canada from Calgary, Canada writes: Congratulations to Mr. Gore - the BEST President the USA never had. (Do you think for a second that the US would be in the terrible jam it's in now in Iraq if he'd taken the Presidency like he should have?)

    Damning Mr. Gore is the New Religion of human-induced Climate Change Deniers.
  493. Dennis sinneD. from Calgary, Canada writes: Well joe, I wouldn't put Gore quite that low. He's like a snot-ball compared to the infection puss you mentioned.

    They're definitely a different level of poor choice.
  494. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: GlynnMhor...even if the complete dataset shows a slight cooling in more recent data as you illustrate, these small short-term variations are not significant enough to disprove the overall longer-term trend that the globe is in fact warming.

    There is no scientist on this planet who would be able to withstand peer review with such a conclusion.

    You cannot look at one particular day/month/year which defies the long-term trend and immediately declare that the trend is broken. So far, 2007 is shaping up to be the second warmest year on record (behind 1998).
  495. Fifty cal from Austin, Texas, United States writes: YES! The Goracle for PREZ! He can, by himself, END GLOBULL WARMING! $100 a gallon gas, $100 a Kw 'energy' tax, bringing back 50 million horses (they don't 'pollute', all that horse dung can be used to grow food, YUM). In just a few years, we'll be back to 12th century living and we can unite with the muslims in one big happy UN-lead WORLD GOVERNMENT! With 'slick' willie Clinton as the world leader! YAY!
  496. joe kelly from Canada writes: Dear J Luft-waffe from 'Calgary'.
    You are a fan of KKKarl Rove I see.
    Let's SwiftBoat ole Al Gore shall we?
    Nobel Prize Joe Stalin x Adolf Hitler (no Less) = Al Gore!
    Brilliant. A bit more of this kind of brilliant thinking and the 'conservative' movement on this continent will be discredited for an awfully long time. Thanks. (Of course, neo-cons are not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. They are reactionaries. Reactionaries are people who lack constructive imagination.)
  497. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: Bob Beal: Re: your post at 8:44 a.m. I am well aware that Winston Churchill won the Nobel Prize for Literature for writing history books (actually the second to do so besides Theodor Mommsen), and I can also name you one hundred authors off the top of my head who wrote outstanding works of literature, and who did not receive that prize. I am also familiar some of the works of over 95 of the recipients of the Nobel Prize for Literature which I will venture is more than you.

    So I don't need any lectures from you about work ethic.
  498. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Andrea Timmons from Kingston: Bravo on your choice to support the REAL conservatives...the ones that actually still believe in conservation.

    The Greens have a ways to go to shed their old 'granola-eating leftist' image, but there's no option out there that comes close in terms of framing the issues that really matter in the long-term. I really like their recent market-oriented, pro-business policies.
  499. Eric Stewart from Canada writes: It was bound to happen.... Hollywood meets Nobel.
  500. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Dave T: Sorry, but your shot at Churchill made it sound as if you did not know. I had forgotten about Mommsen until you mentioned him, and I am both a historian and a professional writer. It has been a long time since I looked at some of that kind of stuff, and thanks for reminding me. On the other hand, I am just rereading Henri Bergson's 'Time and Free Will' because I saw it mentioned in a newspaper the other day.
  501. Eric Stewart from Canada writes: Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: The Greens have a ways to go to shed their old 'granola-eating leftist' image, but there's no option out there that comes close in terms of framing the issues that really matter in the long-term. I really like their recent market-oriented, pro-business policies.'

    I agree with your take on the Green Party. Their combination of fiscal conservatism and environmental conservatism is what will win the day. The NDP are now irrelevant in Ontario.
  502. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: Current readings of carbon dioxide content in fresh air varies between 0.03% (300 ppm) and 0.06% (600 ppm), depending on the location.

    Some of us who are teachers will recall that in the 1960's that the carbon dioxide content was much lower at 0.025%. Ever since those days, Teachers used to alert their classes to the gradual increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

    Congrats to the Mr. Al Gore and the IPCC share (Head IPCC head Dr. Rajendra Pachauri) for sharing this prestigous Nobel prize.

    But what about the millions of untold heroes (amongst them Teachers and Environmentalists around the world) who for decades have been striving tirelessly to educate their students and the people of the planet of the impending disaster if the effects of climate change factors are not reversed or neutralized?

    Are Gore and Pachauri the only ones whose voices really count?

    Certainly it helps to be in the limelight to be nominated!

    How noble?
  503. bill williams from Guelph, Canada writes: This post is addressed to all those who are responding favourably to the news that Al Gore won the NPP for his work in raising public awareness...period (he's not a climatologist...can anyone hear Gomer Pile sayin' 'Surprahz, surprahz!'):

    Lot's of good people are just as thrilled as you are that the issue gets an even higher profile and more credibility now. Don't be discouraged by all the cynical negativity that you see here from people who are frozen in a time warp and think that the debate has not moved on. Canadians are responding to polls in very high numbers saying that they consider this issue as 'for real' and extremely important to them, and they are ready to make changes in our society...so am I, and so are you. We have lots of good news to celebrate today--the IPCC and Gore get kudos. What we don't have is time. Today's story is the NPP; tomorrows story--as far as I'm concerned--is what have those of us who have gotten the message done to advance global efforts to deal with this problem? Trying to change the minds of the vanishingly small minority who just can't come to terms with all of this does not count for much in that regard. Don't waste your time being a foil for them. Do what you can to get our society to advance efforts, and forget the nay-sayers; in the history of the world they have never counted but on the negative side of the ledger.
  504. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: bill williams says 'in the history of the world they have never counted but on the negative side of the ledger.' Would you say that about those who revealed the Great Tasaday Hoax or Pons and Fleischmann Cold Fusion, or Piltdown man or Hwang's stem-cell papers.....well, you get the picture.

    Keep sitting on your high horse, bill....it's a long painful way down.
  505. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: Oh, and bill williams....what do you have to say about the UK courts ruling on Gore's science fiction film?
  506. CD W from Canada writes: 9 essential lies of Gore, the main one being Katrina. A British Judge has ruled that his film cannot be shown to children without showing the lies. And with the increased heat in the Gulf, there should have been 30 hurricanes this past year. I love the fact that he capitilized on the fear of the left as m moore has done. It is good to know your market and then steal from it. Remember what is the number one green house gas then 2 then 3. You all have it wrong, heating of the planet is radiant not convective. And stuff your canadian guilt that we will have more corn and that folks who never had a 3 mile deep ice sheet on top of their heads still are animists who have failed at living and controling their environment. Sniffles.
  507. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Mr X from Edmonton, Canada writes: I found that Al Gore's documentary while interesting was half about the environment and half about Al Gore. I think that he had all the opportunity in the world to do something about climate change when he and Bill were in power, but they did very little.

    ---
    That is because Congress has the power to create legislation, and they voted overwhelmingly to throw Kyoto out.
  508. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: Hilarious that laymen like Luft think they're smarter than the scientists working on the issue. Sure makes for good Friday evening entertainment, especially with his crazy socialist conspiracy theories.
  509. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: joe kelly from Canada writes: Dear J Luft-waffe from 'Calgary'.
    You are a fan of KKKarl Rove I see.
    Let's SwiftBoat ole Al Gore shall we?

    ----

    In science they call that throwing out a faulty theory. And the very fact you refer to Karl Rove as KKKarl shows that you are politically tainted and unable to separate your political hatred from science.

    And by SwiftBoating, do you mean when 40 of the 42 guys you served with call you a liar and a charlatan?
  510. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: The world is upside at this moment. First, a British court slams the Goreacle and then....the BBC breaks out of their dhimmitude and airs the dreaded prophet cartoons of doom!

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27488Shocka!BBCShowsMohammed_Cartoons&only

    Well, if the rising seas don't get us tonight then millions of rioting Muslims will! LOL
  511. sun vann from nelson, bc, Canada writes: I was (most unfortunately and stupidly) under the impression that people who read the G&M were generally intelligent folk. With the exception of a few (actually a number) of good honest and well-written posts today, , I must say that MANY of the above postings are . . . just unbelieveable, childish and outright lame and crass !

    Keep breathing that Southern Ontario smog and keep standing behind your vehicles and takein deep breaths, because it all proves that many of your brains have heavy metals and toxic elements residing there !

    Congratulations to Al Gore and Michael Moore, David Suzuki, Naomi Klein and so many others who are not afraid to stand up and speak the truth, even thogh they must dodge the S###! thrown at them.
  512. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: CD W: Don't forget that before the judge found the nine errors or exaggerations, he wrote:

    ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

    'The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
    (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ('climate change');
    (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ('greenhouse gases');
    (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
    (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects.'
    These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists.
  513. Jerry Cutler from Delta, BC, Canada writes: Congratulations, Al, you richly deserve this honour!!

    And had you gotten what you deserved in 2000, this world would have been a much happier, safer and better place.
  514. G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: Congratulations Mr. Gore!!! Brilliant! I saw Gore speak in Calgary and even in this oil town he received 3 standing ovations!

    BRAVO!
  515. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Jerry Cutler from Delta, BC, Canada writes: Congratulations, Al, you richly deserve this honour!!

    And had you gotten what you deserved in 2000, this world would have been a much happier, safer and better place.

    -----

    If giving Al Gore a medal for possibly preventing future catastophes (global warmening), why can't your future prediction machine predict that Bush deposing Saddam and his sons might have prevented a future nuclear holocaust? Both scenarios are impossible to prove or disprove.
  516. b mac from Canada writes: What a joke! When Gore and Clinton were running the USA they had exactly the same information on the environment as we have now. They did absolutely NOTHING. It all comes down to THE MONEY and how much Al Gore can put in his own pockets. What a farce. I believe he charges $125 a person to speak on the environment and $32 thousand a year to heat and cool his southern mansion.
  517. Bruce Reimer from Swift Current, Canada writes: Flawed data is misinterpreted daily by all sorts of people in all sorts of circumstances. Why was Gore's misinterpretation singled out for the 'Prize'? The flawed data used by Gore and conclusions arrived at due to misinterpretation have given the radical 'tree huggers' and the media something other than the Iraq war to occupy themselves. The award of the Nobel Prize will fan the flames a while longer.
  518. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Bruce Reimer from Swift Current, Canada: After looking at who voted to give Gore the 'prize' it is obvious a purely political move. My guess is that many realize Hillary is unelectable (given all the stories that are poised to break about her) and the Gore is the last best great hope for the socialists. My best guess is this is the impetus he needs to jump into the election. I can guarantee you they didn't give the prize based on the science because serious flaws in the theory have been exposed within the last year.
  519. Sam G from Toronto, Canada writes: Earth calling Susan Kennedey. What am I talking about? Have you heard of environmental pollution? You have? You think that's good and healthy? Whether Gore is right or not with his theories, pollution is as real as it gets, from tainted food, pesticides, smog in the air, and tainted water (Walkerton was a tragedy caused by industrial pollution of underground water which ended up in water supply of the town).

    If that's too much thinking for you, watch 'Erin Brokovich' movie again. It is a true story on how large corporations poison underground water which then causes all kinds of health problems.
  520. Will Str from Canada writes: UFFFF! Tough week for the Neocons! First the Ontario election, now this! They are fuming! LOL!
  521. Randy D from Canada writes: Now the Nobel peace prize people have reduced themselves to a farce. Any of you lefties get a ride on Gores gas guzzling jet or is he just too goodl for most of you mental midgets.
  522. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: LOL, resorting to name calling is just embarrasing Luft. Calling me a socialist is also a good one. I especially love the bit about thousands of scientists disagreeing with Gore; you must be refering to the list full of names, most of whom do not have any scientific credentials and those that do are not climatologists. You're really going to have to do better than that to disprove all the peer reviewed science done to date. Thanks for the laughs though, lol.
  523. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: b mac - You might be able to blame Clinton and Gore for inaction if you ignore that any action they proposed would have had to go through both a Republican controlled congress and senate. How very selective and partisan of you.
  524. Brendan Caron from Vancouver, Canada writes: Good for Gore. When people were asking about Warming Global temperatures Gore was already becoming fully cognizant of the Changing that was brought about by human interference through over-consumption brought on by consumerism. We learned how to use the resources that were available to make life better and more comfortable for substantial numbers of people of modern, Western- read freedom- oriented persuasion developing the development of technologies to enhance everyone's life. Look at the development of pollutants in the air around you. Now everyone in the world wants to have what we have. That is four or five more economic engines churning out noxious gasses that are going to possess the atmosphere we breathe. At least we, in our culture at this point, realize that you can't spew noxious, poisonous things into the air or water because people will die as a result of it. Plain and simple. We've learned and are learning better ways to give us the comfort that we all demand as a basic of life. The result of these innovative advances towards self-sustainability means that everyone in the world can have what we have. We can't give everyone a car or a truck but we can give them an electric grid. At least Gore is doing something about it. The time for action is now and not tomorrow. Good for Gore. Let everyone know from the African to the South American. Whatever colour the sun makes your skin tone you will understand and look for the better life that we can all attain.
  525. Shekar Iyer from Richmond Hill, Canada writes: I presume that the Nobel committee forgot about that heated swimming pool as well as that mansion in Nashville that consumes over 10 times the energy of an average US home. Perhaps we expect our politicians to be hypocrites.
  526. David Simon from Canada writes: 1/ I wonder how Gore is going to get to Oslo?

    2/ If I make a movie about peace will I get a Peace prize?

    3/ Between now and when gore get his Prize, how many coal-fired plants will China alone build (or Ontario alone close)

    4/ This is a win-win situation. If Gore is right Canada will get warmer. Yippee.

    If Gore is wrong, boy will he and the Nobel committee and lots of others look foolish.
  527. joe kelly from Canada writes: Dear J Luftwaffe and Michael Jahonneson: Having read a number of your posts over the past few months I have come to one of the following conclusions: 1. You are card-carrying members of the NDP who post the most ridiculous reactionary nonsense inorder to caricature the political right. 2. You are 14 year-old boys in your parent's rec rooms with little else to do but bemuse yourselves by adopting these personas of haute grandeur and political extremist verbosity. 3. You are who you actually purport to be, in which case you destroy the credibility of the conservative movement in this country because you cannot seperate your ego-centric prejudices from policy. Meaning, any policy that is associated with the 'left' (oh I don't know, say child care) is automatically condemned because, why, 'because 40 out of 42 international child care experts believe child care is bad'. This is of course a complete fabrication, but that is the expertise of reactionaries like yourselves who worship (and defend) the greatest reactionary and destroyer of conservativism in the US, Karl Rove. (Note recent congressional elections.) FYI, referring to those who call you out on your bs as 'lunatics' is classic Rovenism. As is assassinating the character of military heros like McCain and Kerry. I actually think it is door #1 above. So please, do the rest of us conservatives a favour and shut-up. Oh, and Michael, your following post: 'In science they call that throwing out a faulty theory. And the very fact you refer to Karl Rove as KKKarl shows that you are politically tainted and unable to separate your political hatred from science. And by SwiftBoating, do you mean when 40 of the 42 guys you served with call you a liar and a charlatan?' Is very funny. The first paragraph is called P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-N-G in psychology, and the second is a reaffirmation of my earlier point --- tell lies, tell big lies, and in time some idiot will start to believe them.
  528. joe kelly from Canada writes: Dear J Luftwaffe and Michael Jahonneson: Having read a number of your posts over the past few months I have come to one of the following conclusions: 1. You are card-carrying members of the NDP who post the most ridiculous reactionary nonsense inorder to caricature the political right. 2. You are 14 year-old boys in your parent's rec rooms with little else to do but bemuse yourselves by adopting these personas of haute grandeur and political extremist verbosity. 3. You are who you actually purport to be, in which case you destroy the credibility of the conservative movement in this country because you cannot seperate your ego-centric prejudices from policy. Meaning, any policy that is associated with the 'left' (oh I don't know, say child care) is automatically condemned because, why, 'because 40 out of 42 international child care experts believe child care is bad'. This is of course a complete fabrication, but that is the expertise of reactionaries like yourselves who worship (and defend) the greatest reactionary and destroyer of conservativism in the US, Karl Rove. (Note recent congressional elections.) FYI, referring to those who call you out on your bs as 'lunatics' is classic Rovenism. As is assassinating the character of military heros like McCain and Kerry. I actually think it is door #1 above. So please, do the rest of us conservatives a favour and shut-up. Oh, and Michael, your following post: 'In science they call that throwing out a faulty theory. And the very fact you refer to Karl Rove as KKKarl shows that you are politically tainted and unable to separate your political hatred from science. And by SwiftBoating, do you mean when 40 of the 42 guys you served with call you a liar and a charlatan?' Is very funny. The first paragraph is called P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-N-G in psychology, and the second is a reaffirmation of my earlier point --- tell lies, tell big lies, and in time some idiot will start to believe them.
  529. Will Str from Canada writes: David Simon from Canada writes: 1/ I wonder how Gore is going to get to Oslo?

    2/ If I make a movie about peace will I get a Peace prize?

    3/ Between now and when gore get his Prize, how many coal-fired plants will China alone build (or Ontario alone close)

    4/ This is a win-win situation. If Gore is right Canada will get warmer. Yippee.

    If Gore is wrong, boy will he and the Nobel committee and lots of others look foolish.'

    Well.... with your post you sound like a fool already, no need to wait for that one.
  530. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Legitimate scientists, not flakes like Tim Ball, have recently strongly criticized the consensus model of the IPCC. These criticisms were published in the leading research journal Science. Based on discussions that normally appear here, you would think that the criticism was directed at the validity of AGW. If you read popular media, you would reach the same conclusion. However, in the science community, the criticism of the consensus model is that it is too conservative. There has been, in the past two years, significant and alarming new data on glacial melting. In an article entitled 'Climate Change: The Limits of Consensus' Oppenheimer and colleagues point out the problems with the consensus-based approach of the IPCC. Here are some excerpts:

    'The emphasis on consensus in IPCC reports, however, has put the spotlight on expected outcomes, which then become anchored via numerical estimates in the minds of policy-makers. With the general credibility of the science of climate change established, it is now equally important that policy-makers understand the more extreme possibilities that consensus may exclude or downplay.'

    'The range does not include the potential for increasing contributions from rapid dynamic processes in the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets (WAIS), which have already had a significant effect on sea level over the past 15 years and could eventually raise sea level by many meters. Lacking such processes, models cannot fully explain observations of recent sea-level rise, and accordingly, projections based on such models may seriously understate potential future increases.'

    Science 317:1505-1506 September 14, 2007. web link:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5844/1505
  531. Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: Brendan Caron from Vancouver, Canada writes: Good for Gore. When people were asking about Warming Global temperatures Gore was already becoming fully cognizant of the Changing that was brought about by human interference through over-consumption brought on by consumerism.
    >>>Who know better then Gore about over-consumption brought on by consumerism. Anyone living like him is a specialst in over-consumption. And hypocrasy. As a matter of fact I am his converted supporter and follower. From now on I will tell to everyone around me how concerned I am about the global worming. Then I will double my consumption bying a larger house with warmed pool. Just like my (and yours) spiritual guru Al Gore.
  532. Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: G. Veneta from Calgary, Canada writes: Congratulations Mr. Gore!!! Brilliant! I saw Gore speak in Calgary and even in this oil town he received 3 standing ovations!
    >>>And 125K as the top snake skin salesman.
  533. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: The problem with the AGW critics is not simply that they hold positions that challenge the hypothesis, it is how they challenge it. Rather than publish convincing data in legitimate science journals, they appeal directly to an unqualified public. The public is in a conflict-of-interest position. There are costs to addressing CO2 emissions and, consequently, we are all receptive to arguments that we don't have to make any sacrifices. Fortunately, the public as a whole is not buying into this direct appeal. Nor should they. If there are credible arguments backed by credible interpretation of credible data, they need to be published in the leading international research journals. Apart from gaining legitimacy from publishing in such a forum, they also reach what is the key target audience-those qualified to critically evaluate and respond by further testing and building alternative hypotheses. Since they don't do this, I can only conclude that these arguments have no credibility. A direct appeal to the public is an attempt to circumvent the processes that are in place to guarantee that public policy decisions are informed with the best advice that science can provide. Direct appeals to the public are dishonest and reflect the work of people who have learned that they cannot compete with the real leaders in these areas of study.

    So, what I am saying is that if you want to advance alternative hypotheses, you need to demand that those who are proposing such hypotheses allow their work to undergo the scrutiny and validation of the peer review process. Those who refuse to do so are cowards and charlatans.
  534. Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes:
    So, what I am saying is that if you want to advance alternative hypotheses, you need to demand that those who are proposing such hypotheses allow their work to undergo the scrutiny and validation of the peer review process. Those who refuse to do so are cowards and charlatans.
    >>>No, they are politicians and Hollywood darlings. And they get Oscars and Nobel prizes. Hypothesis Shmopothesis. Boring and not cute. Try to get 125K for a speech with hypotheses.
  535. Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Sceptical Observer, there is a big difference between what Al Gore is doing, which is serving as an intermediary between the peer-reviewed science and the general public and what the opponents of the AGW hypothesis are doing, which is completely circumventing peer review and appelaing directly to the public. Interestingly, the Globe poll on the Al Gore award comes pretty close to reflecting public opinion. That is that those who are most opposed to the public communication of this science are a very vocal and very small minority of the population. Your message is simply not getting through. Nobody is listening and nobody believes it. That's quite remarkable given the science literacy in this country.
  536. Alyson Macdonald from Kandahar, writes: MY ONLY HOPE TWO OF THEM ARAFAT AND GORE MEET TORGEHER
    VERY SOON AMIN
  537. nick none O'yerbuisness from Canada writes: What did gore do to deserve the peace prize?
    why not give it to someone who actually promotes PEACE?
    but no, it goes to some second-rate politician who is getting rich off the global warming bull that he feeds us!
  538. Mrs. T from Canada writes: Wow. I will never again look at the Nobel Peace Prize nominations and elections in the same way. Yikes. I am sure Mr. Gore is giggling in his hot tub as we speak. What an insult to all the other quiet, not quite so puffed up seekers of good for all mankind.
  539. Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Edmonton, Canada writes: Sceptical Observer, there is a big difference between what Al Gore is doing, which is serving as an intermediary between the peer-reviewed science and the general public and what the opponents of the AGW hypothesis are doing, which is completely circumventing peer review and appelaing directly to the public.
    >>>Both sides use the same tactics. I don't have problem with the idea that consumerism have caused serious damage to the global eco-system. I have problem with apparent hypocrisy when someone like Al Gore preaching about this. Imagine Gandhi preaching about non-violence while shooting at people with a gun. Millions of people will learn that all is required is just lips service. This is unacceptable. He is a loyal servant of the system he pretends to condemn. Playing role as his Hollywood friend that are capable of faking everything. Personal integrity is important.
  540. Bruce May from Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam writes: My-my, the deniers' hive is buzzing with anger. Harper, Bush, and the Pentagon all now acknowledge anthropogenic global warming is a real danger...and now this outrage! But what about the research showing absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 is inversely proportional to Al Gore's electric bill? There's scientific proof at
    http://corporatekissa$$.thinktank.org/blog/~blog/GoreElectric.htm
    It comes from a think-tank AND a blog so it's doubly scientific. Really. Or how about
    http://www.donttouchourprofits.org/blog//TotalEconomicDestruction.htm
    It's scientifically proven that development and use of clean, efficient technologies will TOTALLY DESTROY the economy. That's not a scare tactic, that's a FACT. Because it comes from a think-tank. And a blog.
  541. Watcher 1983 from Just around the corner, Canada writes: Alan Burke from Ottawa. For information on doctoring read Dr. Patrick Michaels University of Virginia climatologist and Dr. John Christy. Check out:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b49045a4ada.htm, "Tampering With Science" as a start. To find sources read FIGHT KYOTO by Ezra Levant and the Appendices and Bibliography of Michael Crichton's STATE OF FEAR for more sources.
  542. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: "You cannot look at one particular day/month/year which defies the long-term trend and immediately declare that the trend is broken."

    The 30 year trends from 1880-1910, 1910-1940, and 1940-1970 are not replicated by the models. Only the for recent 1970-2000 period do the models match the observations.

    Should we then ignore over 90 years of data and trends to accept the one 30-year sequence that seems to substantiate the AGW hypothesis?

    "So far, 2007 is shaping up to be the second warmest year on record (behind 1998)."

    Look at the actual data. 2007 has been cooler than the last 10 months of 2001, and all of 2002-2005.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
  543. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I recommend to anyone who would look at the real data to review the full documentation at:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
    and in particular, the document which is suggested for anyone doing analysis:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf
    or http://tinyurl.com/39622r.

    I have examined the data in an Excel spreadsheet, producing graphs for each month, and cannot come to the same conclusions as Glynnmhor. It is clear from all of the graphs that there has been a continuing rise in global average temperatures since about 1910 with the exception of the period during and slightly after World War II.

    The IPCC report shows the development of models which took both natural and anthropogenic factors into account and the natural-only models cannot replicate the data; it's only once the anthropogenic factors are included that the models track measurements.

    Glynnmhor is correct in pointing out specific anomalies but cherry-picking small amounts of data to conclude a major trend is a severe distortion of the reality.
  544. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: GlynnMhor - Less time staring at the Hadley Centre's raw data and more time spent reading their work will gain an understanding of climatology that you lack. I hope that your educational background is not science or social science because attempting to draw conclusions from raw data in a vaccum of knowledge and other information is simply ignorant. That you continue to repeat it is dishonest.
  545. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: Watcher - I should listen to 1)Patrick Michaels - an industry funded scientist who is not actually at the University of Virgina any longer because that industry funding and private research left his workplace too politicized, 2)John Christy - who know acknowledges that climate change is real and the man's effect is great contradicting many of his previous statements, 3)Ezra Levant - far right political pundit or 4)Michael Crichton - Author who can use whatever he wishes in his fictional work and is not subject to peer review. Quite the cherry picked list you have there. Your time would be better spent reading Science or Nature if you want to actually learn about the subject.
  546. SelCan - from Canada writes: Cynicism will not make the world a better place...Al Gore has worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years. His unflagging efforts as a leading climate campaigner has proven that a single individual can create greater worldwide understanding of the measures needed to be adopted to save our planet. He has fought the environmental battle even as vice president, many did not listen...but he carried on. Consumers worldwide are finally becoming educated about global warming and its effect on our planet. Al Gore, like no other, has put climate change on the agenda with his lectures, books and Oscar-nominated documentary "An Inconvenient Truth"...and because of his efforts, global warming has been increasingly recognized. In the 1980s it seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent. Gore uses his position to get politicians to understand that global warming is unequivocal and that it is accelerating. We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it must be raised above party and international politics...it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level. A prerequisite of winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference. There is no doubt that Al Gore has succeeded. It's the effort that counts. Once genuine efforts are recognized and rewarded, more people will follow the example. As to cynicism. It leads us nowhere. The man who SHOULD have been president has an excess of intelligence and integrity...which usually leads the stupid to shun such a person. 'And Noah looked out through the driving rain Them unicorns were hiding, playing silly games Kicking and splashing while the rain was falling Oh, them silly unicorns '
  547. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Dr. Patrick Michaels is possibly the most prolific and widely-quoted climate change skeptic scientist. He has admitted receiving funding from various fossil fuel industry sources. His latest book, published in September 2004 by the Cato Institute, is titled: Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.

    Michaels is the Chief Editor for the "World Climate Review," a newsletter on global warming funded by the Western Fuels Association. Dr. Michaels has acknowledged that 20% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources: (http://www.mtn.org/~nescncl/complaints/determinations/det118.html) Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a "wise use" group. He received $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper's magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests. Michaels wrote "Sound and Fury" and "The Satanic Gases" which were published by Cato Institute. Dr. Michaels signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. In July of 2006, it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association "contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels." (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=1) ALEC advisor. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11310 and http://www.cato.org/pubdisplay.php?pub_id=3558

    A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology, University of Chicago Ph.D. in ecological climatology , University of Wisconsin at Madison. Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, and Program Chair for the Committee on Applied Meterology of the American Meterological Society.
  548. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'm sorry about the italics in my last posting - it's the G&M markup (undocumented) which treats the underscore character as a markup delimiter for italics. I have asked for but never received a description from the G&M about which characters to avoid in postings.

    Unfortunately, it turns out that the offending link no longer exists, apparently having been removed from the Minnesota Television Network website.
  549. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Oops, that should be "Minneapolis Television Network". The www.cato.org link should be http://www.cato.org/pub***display.php?pub_id=3558
    if you replace the "***" with a single underscor character or try:
    http://tinyurl.com/36f4f6
  550. Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: SelCan - from Canada writes: There is no doubt that Al Gore has succeeded. It's the effort that counts. Once genuine efforts are recognized and rewarded, more people will follow the example. As to cynicism. It leads us nowhere.
    >>>What example? His personal example? I mean I am expected to buy a huge house with heated pool. Maybe his Hollywood friends example. Spending like a pig but expressing fake concerns following their PR recommendations. Left right. They are not that different when it comes to their personal life styles. So get up and say "guys we need to drive compactsand not huge SUVs". Oh I ma sorry it will hurt Detroit. Guys don't drink soft drinks. This is pure waste of resources and hurt your teeth. Oh I am sorry this will hurt Coca Cola. A lying prophet is a false prophet even if the basic idea is correct.
  551. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Please see the following concerning the Gore family residence:

    http://www.practicalenvironmentalist.com/energy-efficiency/update-al-gore-goes-green-at-home-with-a-leed-renovation-and-solar-roof.htm
    or for convenience, try:
    http://tinyurl.com/32lcsf

    Once you have done so, please stop the uninformed knee-jerk comments about his personal energy usage at home.
  552. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: You might also like to check out: http://www.truthandprogress.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=383
  553. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: GlynnMhor"... attempting to draw conclusions from raw data..."

    You have not yet figured it out; the problem is the attempts by various AGW enthusiasts to draw conclusions from inadequate and faulty models. The raw data merely reveal the defects in the modelling.

    The models (including anthropogenic forcings or not) quite clearly fail to follow the ups-and-downs of the actual data. That means that there is some factor (or factors) not taken into consideration in that modelling.

    More particularly, anthropogenic forcings during the most recent warming period (1970-2000) are exagerated to make the models fit the data without trying to include whatever caused the nearly identical 1910-1940 warming. 1970-2000 is the only part of the dataset that the models actually do match.
  554. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: "...concerning the Gore family residence..."

    Well, nowhere do the links detail what his new energy consumption is, neither for his largest mansion, nor for his three (or four) other homes.

    He used to go through some $30,000 dollars a year in gas and electricity for just the one house; I doubt that the improvements mentioned will bring his usage down anywhere near the US average, much less the average in more eficcient countries.
  555. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: SelCan - from Canada writes:"Al Gore has worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years."

    The guy has founded a company which will make him millions of dollars per annum from trading the artificial 'carbon credits' he is trying to have foisted on everyone.
  556. Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: Thanks Alan for the interesting link.
    Lets see what we are talking about:
    Earlier this year, a conservative group criticized Gore, citing electric bills that were far more than the typical Nashville home. Utility records showed the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its 10,000-square-foot home.

    Gore’s renovation project, which he said has been in the works for months, seeks to meet the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, standards established by the U.S. Green Building Council.

    This is a small step for Gore and even smaller step for the mankind. So should we strive purchasing 10,000-square-foot home to follow the leader? What about the energy wasted when this home was built?
    So Gore’s mansion in question is approximately 10,000 square feet, compared to the President’s ranch house, which is around 4,000.
    And he has more than one mansion.
    So much for the prophet. How many minds will be corrupted by this apparent hypocrisy.
    He is my personal message: CUT THE BS AND CUT YOUR CONSUMPTION. INSTEAD OF RECYCLING JUST DON'T BUY THE STUFF IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUYING HYBRID SUV LOOKS CUTE BUT IS NOT ENOUGH. AL GORE IS A FALSE PROPHET.
  557. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: GlynnMhor - You clearly haven't figured it out. What you're doing is wrong, plain and simple. Instead of continuously trying to foist your faulty thought on others, spend some time reading what the Hadley Centre produces and the work in other peer reviewed scientific journals.
  558. Andrea Timmons from Kingston, Canada writes: Al Gore's personal life/history is not the important issue here. It's the environment & anything which showcases our environmental problems is a good thing.
    The man's message is helping to educate people about their environment and it's what the prize focuses on not his person.
  559. Eric Stewart from Canada writes: Al Gore for President? Does he want the job? Gore is firmly stuck between a big rock and a very hard place. His position on Global Climate Change would have to be severely compromised if he could ever expect to lead the world's most energy intensive nation.

    Should the US sign on to and abide by the Kyoto Protocol under a newly elected President Gore there is no way for them to continue to wage war. After all, so much of the US economy relies on military supplies and services which contribute immensely to US CO2 output. I would guess that the Iraq war, given the consumption associated with it, spews as much CO2 as most of the world's nations do.

    So, would President Gore have the domestic clout to really affect change? Could he shut down the American military industrial complex? Is the United States prepared to erase the trillions of dollars involved in the military economy and give up its superpower status just to meet Kyoto targets? I think not.

    Gore cannot possibly become President unless he is willing to accept that his reputation as an environmental warrior will fall apart as he evolves into becoming the greatest hypocrite in history.

    Hilary can rest easy. Bush can be smug.
  560. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: You have not yet figured it out; the problem is the attempts by various AGW enthusiasts to draw conclusions from inadequate and faulty models. The raw data merely reveal the defects in the modelling." The real problem is your continual reference to modelling as flawed and the basis for GW. Only attribution uses models and the conclusions of those models fit too well to be claimed to be 'flaky' "The models (including anthropogenic forcings or not) quite clearly fail to follow the ups-and-downs of the actual data. That means that there is some factor (or factors) not taken into consideration in that modelling." The reason we use models is because too many variables feed back to each other, plus there are various lags in effects due to the large scale of the system modelled. To claim that it all boils down to a linear equation as you imply ( quite clearly fail to follow the ups-and-downs of the actual data) shows your ignorance of the science. Your conclusions based on your ignorance are meaningless. "More particularly, anthropogenic forcings during the most recent warming period (1970-2000) are exagerated to make the models fit the data without trying to include whatever caused the nearly identical 1910-1940 warming. 1970-2000 is the only part of the dataset that the models actually do match." To claim fraud for the work of tens of thousands of eminent climate scientist is just ridiculous. The fact is that debnying GHG emissions or their effects is quite absurd at this point.
  561. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: "GlynnMhor What you're doing is wrong, plain and simple."

    Somebody has to tell the truth. Most people I talk to, whose only sources of information are the vulgar media, think (for example) that global temperatures are not only still rising, but rising faster than they have ever been. You yourself know that to be utterly false. Gore knows too, but I've never read or heard of his admitting it.

    "Instead of continuously trying to foist your faulty thought on others, spend some time reading what the Hadley Centre produces..."

    Heh heh heh heh... I have and I do.

    I've also spent much of my working life modelling physical systems, and have thus a better than average grasp of what modelling can and cannot tell us. Many people think that if a computer model says such-and-such, it must be so. In reality models need to be constrained, and the climate models just don't have adequate constraints.
  562. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "The reason we use models is because too many variables feed back to each other, plus there are various lags in effects due to the large scale of the system modelled. To claim that it all boils down to a linear equation as you imply (quite clearly fail to follow the ups-and-downs of the actual data) shows your ignorance of the science."

    It is your own thinking that is linear. The bottom line remains that if the models do not replicate the known past data, they cannot be relied upon to predict future data. This holds true whether the models are simple, or whether they are a long series of cascading partial differentials. As you said 'too many variables' exist, without enough known equations to arrive at a solution, and the inadequate results speak for themselves.
  563. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Andrea Timmons from Kingston, Canada writes: "Al Gore's ... message is helping to educate people about their environment..."

    His message is 'buy into the whole Kyoto scam so I can make millions from my company that will trade the resulting artificial carbon credits'.
  564. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: In their chapter 9 report, titled "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" and in the technical summary available here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html, the IPCC acknowledge that existing models have limitations. In particular, it is difficult to model temperatures on less than continental physical scales and with a finer resolution than a decade.

    "Model and data improvements, ensemble simulations and improved representations of aerosol and greenhouse gas forcing along with other infl uences lead to greater confidence that most current models reproduce large-scale forced variability of the atmosphere on decadal and interdecadal time scales quite well."

    That there are limitations should come as no surprise given the complexity of the problem. But that is no reason, GlynnMhor, to throw out the baby with the bath water.

    Only models which include human-generated factors track actual temperatures; those that exclude them for natural causes only fail utterly to track. What do you propose as alternatives if you exclude anthropogenic factors?

    The risk to planet Earth is severe. There is a known connection between temperatures and CO2 production which is now at dangerous levels. See: theglobeandmail.com
    or http://tinyurl.com/3yf4j7

    Someone does need to tell the truth. It isn't you.
  565. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Is a severe distortion of the truth still the truth? GlynnMhor says "More particularly, anthropogenic forcings during the most recent warming period (1970-2000) are exagerated to make the models fit the data without trying to include whatever caused the nearly identical 1910-1940 warming. 1970-2000 is the only part of the dataset that the models actually do match."

    In fact, the models do track the 1910-1940 warming quite well, as should be obvious if you have a look at figure TS.23 of the IPCC Technical Summary (page 62). You can download it from here:
    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

    On what basis do you justify your outrageous claim that man-made factors were exaggerated?

    Quoting from the technical summary:
    "It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming observed during the past half century can be explained without external forcing. These changes took place over a time period when non-anthropogenic forcing factors (i.e., the sum of solar and volcanic forcing) would be likely to have produced cooling, not warming (see Figure TS.23). Attribution studies show that it is very likely that these natural forcing factors alone cannot account for the observed warming (see Figure TS.23). There is also increased confidence that natural internal variability cannot account for the observed changes, due in part to improved studies demonstrating that the warming occurred in both oceans and atmosphere, together with observed ice mass losses."
  566. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Also from the technical summary:

    "It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century. Without the cooling effect of atmospheric aerosols, it is likely that greenhouse gases alone would have caused a greater global mean temperature rise than that observed during the last 50 years. A key factor in identifying the aerosol fingerprint, and therefore the amount of cooling counteracting greenhouse warming, is the temperature change through time (see Figure TS.23), as well as the hemispheric warming contrast. The conclusion that greenhouse gas forcing has been dominant takes into account oobservational and forcing uncertainties, and is robust to the use of different climate models, different methods for estimating the responses to external forcing and different analysis techniques."
  567. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: Glynn - Alan Burke is right; you're certainly not the one telling the truth. Your arrogance that you're smarter than the thousands of scientists working on this issue is incredible, especially considering that you have no expertise in the field of climatology. It's quite clear that you formed an opinion and are now cherry picking information to back that opinion up. Spend more time reading peer reviewed scientific journals.
  568. J Kay from Canada writes: GlynnMhor: You are simpy attemping to construct a strawman so that you can 'easily' refute the conclusions of the IPCC by asserting that the IPCC and those who agree that AGW is real are saying that ONLY GHGs act on climate. That is patently false and is NOT he position of the scientists studying the problem. Indeed, in addition to the forcing effects due to GHGs, there are also other natural forcings included in the models, such as solar variation, aerosol forcings, earth's albedo, Milankovitch cycles, etc. These all act together to produce the climate we experience on earth. To insist that there must be a 1-1 correlation of the mean field temperature of the earth corresponding to continual increases year-after-year of GHGs ignores the roles of other natural forcings. Those who hold to AGW don't ignore those forcing, they instead are saying that those other natural forcings are NOT enough to describe the current warming we are experiencing, but ONLY A FOOL would steadfastly assert that any given yearly increase in GHGs MUST result in an increase in temperature. That will only be true ceritus paribus and that has not been shown by the posters above. Any attempt to frame the debate this way, which is what you and others are doing, is highly dishonest, ethically and intellectually bereft.
  569. Roland van Poppelen from Kelowna, Canada writes: This is another sign that the Nobel price has become a shadow of itself these days, given the criteria it uses to determine the price winner.
    Al Gore the self proclaimed inventor of the internet (if this is not an outright lie, I do not know what is) has personally an "energy use footprint" that could light up a small village, is in my opinion not a worthy candidate for this price. It looks like even the Nobel price gets drawn into politics.
  570. Pragmatic Pundit from Calgary, Canada writes: Roland - If you can't be bothered to look up the actual quote and it's context then don't bother posting.
  571. Darrin Duell from Landmark, Canada writes: I heard somewhere that global warming is caused by .. the Sun. The theory is like this: If you plot the number of sun spots, which effect solar radiation and cloud formation against time on a chart you will see a much stronger corelation than you would see by plotting carbon emissions over the same time scale; therefore the sun plays a greater role in regulating temperatures than carbon. The same research demonstrated that the sun's output has doubled over the past 2 decades.

    The guy who came up with that deserves a Nobel Prize, to have exposed the Global Warming issue for the Political/Media Issue that is really is. Not that I am not against capitilizing on the hype to save the planet.. Save the Whales!!
  572. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: What a load of bull that is, Darrin Duell. If the sun's output had doubled in the last decade, we all would have fried or boiled.

    If you care to actually read the science, available here:
    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1_home.html
    from the IPCC working group 1 (WG1), you'd see that solar forcing is NOT the cause of the 20th century rapid increase in global warming.
  573. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: What a load of bull that is, Darrin Duell. If the sun's output had doubled in the last decade, we all would have fried or boiled."

    See http://tinyurl.com/ouhvb as well.
  574. D K from Canada writes: Funny the scientific community agrees that global warming is caused by man, and the beer swilling Sunday quarterbacks try to act like they know more then the scientific community. I wonder which has more credibility?
  575. Darrin Duell from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Excuse me if I am skeptical.. skepticism happens to be an important facet of science. So, easy to overlook when political gain and emotion take over..
  576. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Darrin Duell from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Excuse me if I am skeptical.. skepticism happens to be an important facet of science. "

    But true skepticism is based on competing ideas, not dumb ignorance.

    "So, easy to overlook when political gain and emotion take over.. "

    Well, if thats your excuse..
  577. Darrin Duell from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Yes Ian, the competing idea I mentioned was sunspots... and their effect on global temperature, also, I might add green house gas emissions from oceans, forest fires, marshland and countless other sources. The point I am making is that I am skeptical that climate change is a man made phonomena, that can be fixed by politicians or environmentalists.
  578. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Darrin Duell from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Yes Ian, the competing idea I mentioned was sunspots..."

    Please elucidate your mechanism connecting sunspots to global warming. Show the data that proves the mechanism at work. Also provide a clear mechanism by which the Greenhouse effect is 'stable' to changes in GHGs or an opposing force that for some mysterious reason exactly balances the rise in the Greenhouse effect.

    Being 'skeptical' out of ignorance is not the same as 'skepticism' in science.

    "The point I am making is that I am skeptical that climate change is a man made phonomena, that can be fixed by politicians or environmentalists."

    Certainly, if GW is natural, it would be hard to counter unless we could find a mechanism that 'amplifies' our inputs. This is what GHGs are doing according to current science which is why it is within our capacity to affect global temperatures using GHGs to trap the suns energy.

    If we accept this then reducing GHGs will work to reduce temperatures regardless of whether it is 'natural' or 'manmade'. Physics is really immune to opinions and your claimed 'skepticism' is opinion only, not founded on facts.
  579. Darrin Duell from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Ian, I have to thank you for forcing me to examine this more closely. I went looking for the graphs that in my mind demonstrated a causal relationship between sunspots and global temperature, but, found this instead:

    http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html

    In my mind the sunspot theory as an explanation of global warming can be put to bed as it doesn't correlate after 1985.

    This is also a good resource.. http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

    In case you haven't guessed the source of my skepticism has been Martin Durkin's documentary which raised many questions in my mind, particularly as I have a natural distrust of politicians.
    Regardless, thanks for helping to clear things up.
  580. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "Darrin Duell from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Ian, I have to thank you for forcing me to examine this more closely...In case you haven't guessed the source of my skepticism"

    My point was that it wasn't true 'skepticism' which you admitted yourself. It was denial and second hand denial at that. Too many posters get caught up in trying to 'bluff' their way from a false positions that they 'adopted' second hand.

    This is propaganda, not skepticism and I'm sorry that you got caught by it but happy that you found your way out of it. And thanks for the swindle_swindle link. I wasn't aware of that particular webpage, only the authors ( of the science paper) rebuttal of the misuse of their paper.

    "Regardless, thanks for helping to clear things up."

    A second point, just to complete the subject. While global warming and it's causes is 'scientific fact' the result in terms of "climate change" are VERY much an open topic. Some general consensus is emerging such as in trends to water distribution, but climate change ranges from 'its all natural' to 'adapt a bit' to 'we're all going to die'.

    If you want to discuss those, I would be very happy to join in.
  581. Bah No from Canada writes: Any chance for an alternative POV in the media? Surprisingly there is:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

    2007 is colder, not warmer than previous recent years.

    Arctic melting is not due to AGW (Al Gore Wishes):
    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

    The Antarctic is cooling, and ice coverage is growing.

    2006 and 2007 were relatively calm hurricane years, contrary to alarmist predictions.

    UG debunks the IPCC hockey stick temperature chart:
    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf

    The Sun warms the earth
    http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm

    Yes of course pollution is bad, and the environment should be kept clean and tidy, but drastic (read costly) action for a theoretical computer model of what might happen is ridiculous.
    BTW it's cold in Canada, eh?

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top