Al Gore Top Candidate for Nobel Prize

[Whizbang]

In spite of Al Gore's constant flying around the world in his private jet, polluting the atmosphere with "greenhouse" gases that he tells us are causing global warming, he is numero uno on the Nobel Prize list for saving mankind by warning us of what all of the rest of us are doing to destroy the planet.  Pictures of the Antarctic now show that Antarctica is growing at an unprecedented rate, by almost exactly the same rate that the Arctic is shrinking.  Australia has been experiencing extremely cold winters; and the southern hemisphere, in general, has felt the chill for about 20 years.  Global warming advocates say that the ice accumulation in the antarctic is "proof" that the world is experiencing global warming because the arctic is melting.   ??? ??? ??? ???

From a scientific point of view, without political nor philosophical implications, the evidence simply suggests that the northern hemisphere is indeed getting warmer; and the southern hemisphere is getting colder.  Also, from a scientific standpoint, this is not good either. 

As long as the energy that is received from the sun does not change, the overall temperature on the earth will not change, apart from catastrophic volcanic activity that would heat up the atmosphere temporarily.

The earth's overall temperature = C(absorbed heat - radiated heat) + Steady state temp where C is constant because the atmosphere composition is either constant or a non-contributing factor to the constant.  Absorbed heat - radiated heat always averages out to zero over a period of time.  Black body radiation from the earth, whose matter is finite in quantity but infinitesimal as compared to that of the whole universe, is limited to the physical properties of matter, which never change.  The amount of energy that is radiated from the total earth over a set amount of time is invariant due to black body radiation principles.  I am completely baffled by many physicists (I have a degree in physics) ignoring basic scientific laws and procedures in order to get on board with this Al Gore Chicken Little mentality.

The ones who emphatically endorse the idea that there was once an ice age do not mention that the observed evidence is only in the Northern Hemisphere.  There is no evidence of such a catastrophe in the Southern Hemisphere.  The reason for that would be that in order for the Northern Hemisphere to experience a catastrophic ice covering, the Southern Hemisphere would need to experience a contrasting temperature spiking at the same time because of black body radiation principles that are inviolate.   

[Whizbang]

Well, good for Al. Heââ?¬â?¢s doing some good work and itââ?¬â?¢s always easy to throw stones at someone, especially when one is just repeating the right wing, talking head, jargon. 

Mmm, not right wing.  I have yet to find a conservative who believes there even is a problem that needs to be addressed.  Conservatives tend to have the "Ostrich" mentality.  The fact that the evidence does not support an idea does not mean that the crisis should be ignored because someone of another political persuasion is espousing a different point of view.  The one greatest problem with current science is that no one is willing to listen.  It is like trying to watch Bill O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes.  Most people have opinions that are based not entirely upon fact but also upon politics, and they continually tune out when even incorrect conclusions may contain seeds of truth and then try to drown out potential evidence by interrupting the argument with drivel.  The truth is that we do have a problem; and it is getting worse; but taking the wrong course of action without supporting evidence is not wise at all.  My reference to Chicken Little was alluding to the fact that the espousal of the argument is not based on available evidence but upon a philosophical position that has its roots in the "return to nature" philosophy of making decisions based on emotion.  If Mr. Gore really believes his position, he should live by his beliefs and not criticize others for using the very conveniences that he also uses to espouse his position.  I must admit that the term "mentality" probably should have been "philosophy" because the term I used probably was out of frustration and anger, as in "You moron."   The rather benign term, "philosophy," has no personality attached. 

True science is assimilating facts and drawing conclusions from those facts, not trying to prove one's position.  That is dangerous.  In fact, I have found no one at all, liberal or conservative, who even attempts to address the facts at hand without distorting them.  I have tried posting arguments on science forums only to get laughed at and cussed at by both sides of the political spectrum.      Lovely world we have.   :-\

[Ace]

I think it's time for the Voice of Reason to step into this debate...

Ok; that was funny.  There's really not anything going on in here right now, anyway.  Plus, Al Gore made a movie and apparently enjoys dinner, so I think he fits in with the dinner and a movie motif.

Look, I'm the first to agree that Al Gore is a Noble, Prize-Winning person.  Shoot, he has a grammy or Emmy or Oscar or something besides the new one.  And he almost walked off with the biggest prize of all, Leader of the Free World.  And now he could be the first person drafted since that was abandoned, back when, when we shifted to Volunteers to fight our wars.  Or, in his case, be opposed to some of them.

And I'm sure not the most gifted person when it comes to Science.  I mean, yeah, the one degree says I'm a Master in it, but I don't buy it.  Well, ok, I guess I did buy it.  But not that I believe that, totally.  So maybe the world did turn upside down, somehow, and the South Pole is doing what the North Pole used to.  I couldn't say.  I know penguins are on the one side, and polar bears on the other.  I suppose it's best they stay away from each other, especially from the Penguins perspective.  And, much as I love them, those dippy dancing penguin movies really annoy the bejeebers outta me.  How cloying and repetitive and mind numbing.  And since Coke dropped them, polar bears really haven't been getting the air time.

Plus, this does seem controversial.  I don't quite get the black body radiation thingy but I'm sure Al Sharpton will appear soon to pounce on that...  Plus, "Mormon" was mispelled.  I did hear that Romney is the only Republican candidate having had JUST one wife; ironical, as my dad would say...

Hypocrisy is a tough one; so, sure, you get someone preaching the practice of conservatism and they're the model of Conspicuous Consumption it kinda grates.  You know, that's my disappointment with John Edwards; I really like the guy, and his beliefs, but it's hard seeing him as the champion of the poor living in that homestead.  Not saying he shouldn't be, but it seems paradoxical. 

Hey, here's one; what do you call an idiot who tells clean jokes?  an Oxymoron.

Ok, that's not as good as the seal not wanting Canadian Club in the bar, but what the hey.  I gotta keep stuff moving, plus clean up here.  You know, whether it's Chicken Little or Rich Little, if we're figuring mankind is polluting vehemently and the effect on our climate and living space is changing, let alone worsening, and there's evidence that stuff is going badly (more hurricanes, Europe cooling, hotter heat and colder cold, potential of catastrophic melting and flooding and loss of Tampa Bay (not that the Bucs are gonna stay productive) and possibly Pennsylvania having a nice coast line then knocking back on the causes and greenhouse gases and uncontrolled industrial haze in China and automotive emissions seems sensible, to me.  I mean, whichEVER pole is melting I don't think matters.  I know toilets flush the opposite way depending which end you're on, but it's not like Antartica would flow down and off the Earth but the Arctic would flow down and onto Canada.  Sure, I'd figure scientists differ.  It's not like they chart back and say "See, in 1320 the same thing seemed to be happening, but then it changed back and we didn't have to restrict factory spewing and vehicles after all."  I don't think horses needed a converter. so their exhaust wouldn't wind up melting glaciers.  My concern is while we're dithering over "I think this will result in that" and "No, that would result in this" everything is gonna result in something (bad) and it sure couldn't hurt to play it safe and not just let things go thinking we'll get lucky.  Especially if it's Mother Nature's casino and she's controlling the action and odds.

Yeah, Al Gore could fly around in a Cessna like Steve Fossett, instead of a jet.  Or take a train, although I don't know how either would really help much.  Plus, turn out lights in rooms he's not using.  And, tell his kid that just because he has a hybrid they sorta lose that whole economy edge when you drive them FAST.  If volcanos would be the real risk, isn't it because they spew particulants?  Not like they're working as a teapot and just heating stuff around them...  So if throwing particles into the air is just by nature not a good thing, maybe we oughta figure to restrict them anywho.  I don't see how that's gonna hurt anything, or backfire.  "Oh, no, we sure don't want to restrict industrial and automotive exhaust and smoke and waste..! That could have catastrophic results on the world's climate!" 

That's like me telling my wife "No! You don't want to limit my beer and beef intake...!  Ye gads, that could make me sick!"

ace; hold on.. that just might work...hmm.

[Whizbang]

As expected, Mr. Gore did receive the Nobel Peace Prize; and, to his credit, he announced that the proceeds would go to charity.  I truly believe that Mr. Gore believes what he is preaching.  That is the problem because as the little boy said to his preacher father, "Daddy, were you telling the truth, or were you just preaching?"  Since, as I have said, I am not on any political side nor trying to prove any point, I just wish that all of the crowing and catcalling would cease and that a truly scientific outlay of the data would occur.  Unfortunately, it is not going to happen.  There is so much hatred and arrogance that fills the debate that no one is willing to listen and simply extract actual data to see the real problem. 

In the last science discussion in which I participated on another forum, I was first called a "tinhead" by a conservative, and then told by a liberal that he wanted me to keep posting because "he enjoyed being entertained."  My parting response was "He who ignores the truth and wants to be entertained is a fool."  I never went back and have no intention in returning.  When anyone participates in a discussion and the discussion degenerates into a hen-house cackling party, that person should immediately excuse himself.  That is why I cannot stand to listen to O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes for more than about 10 minutes at most.

If one is to find the best evidence and is unable to make the actual measurements himself, the best way to find unadulterated facts is to glean the data from those who most strongly disagree with your position.  The data that I studied was from that extracted by advocates of global warming because I have learned that it is easier to glean due to the fact that data that appears non-supportive is usually highlighted by vast arguments that tend to downplay its significance.  Since conservatives tend to brush away anything as being of any significance on the  issue, extracting data from the proponents is much easier.  Al Gore is not a scientist, and much of what he has said is not drawn from data but comes instead from conclusions that are passed on to him that others have made. 

Here are the facts as extracted from the above site and links:

1)  Some 45 billion tons of ice have been deposited in the antarctic region in the last 20 years. 
2)  Approximately the same is estimated to have melted in the Arctic, including Greenland.
3)  Ice and snow are being deposited on both the land mass and the ice flow in Antarctica.
4)  The ice that is being deposited on the ice flow is being done at such a rate that it often breaks away in enormous icebergs, at least one of which was the size of the state of Connecticut.

Advocates simply state that proves global warming.  They argue that the antarctic region had to warm up in order for snow to fall and that the warming is also the reason for the melting in the Arctic.  What they fail to mention is that Australia and the southern hemisphere have been experiencing increasingly cold weather for the last two decades.  This conclusion is the problem with current science policy, trying to prove a point rather than simply stating the facts and then drawing a simple conclusion based on those facts.  Conservatives simply point to the global warming advocates as "nuts" because the conclusions appear to be flawed rather than study the data to see what it does say.  What the data does say is obvious, and the conclusion is potentially catastrophic.

1)  45 billion tons of weight has been transferred to the antarctic from the northern extremes.  Some of the ice melt came from land, some from the sea. 
2)  The ice melt that comes from water is not potentially destructive if the same melt is refrozen somewhere else on water because buoyancy principles immediately redistribute the displaced water to compensate.  It would, however, affect the temperature in the surrounding area on both counts because of the moderation due to the change in the heatsink mass that moderates the air temperature.
3)  The ice melt that comes from land, as in Greenland, or the water that is refrozen on the continent of Anarctica is of great consequence because it changes the vertical pressure gradient on the land in those regions.

The current seismic activity is due to continent drift, as supported by all research I have read.  The redistribution of gigantic arctic to antarctic mass that is now occurring introduces a heretofore unprecedented variable that scientists have never had to examine, and that is the vertical gradient change in land mass pressure.  In analogy, if we fill a swimming pool of water with floating inner-tubes that we fragilely connect to each other and place a kid inside each one, the situation is stable until the distribution of mass changes, which is to say that some kid decides to stand on the edge of one of the tubes.  The result is that at least one of the inner-tubes will flip, and maybe others.  The difference between this silly analogy and the landmass redistribution is that the kid  does fall off, and the tube is thus able to right itself.  This is not so with land mass redistribution.  If a vertical seismic shift were to occur, the ice would remain on the landmass long enough for catastrophic consequences to occur.  The inner-tube by analogy is Antarctica, and no one knows how great a seismic shift would occur, but the weight of a large portion of those 45 billion tons, and growing, of matter would cause seismic repercussions that would boggle the mind.  In addition, the earth is connected by the magma center which is connected to the continental mass of Greenland.  The vertical shift in the Antarctic landmass would push through the center of the earth and be felt on Greenland in order to compensate for its enormous tonnage loss.  I will refrain from commenting on the consequences here.  This is a conclusion drawn from scientific facts.  Global warming, real or not, is not the immediate problem.  The imminent problem is vertical continental shift.  That makes global warming as insignificant as a gnat in a bowl of gravy.

I once scoffed at global warming until I realized that I might be missing something in the data.  In all other aspects I am conservative, but that is where I part company with conservative ideologues.  Humiliating someone does not elevate either party; it only creates animosity and causes both to detour from the facts in order to discredit the other. 

[Ace]

Well, I ignore a lot of things, and like to be entertained... I guess I'm a fool.  Imagine; a jester for a fool.  "Hello, Kettle?  This is Pot... You're black."  I've always liked self effacing humour, since that way you beat other people to the punch and get it over with.

Ok, enough talking to myself, although that happens frequently here.  Look, first off Whiz you've got one load of mixed metaphors careening around there; you've got crowing and cackling and cat calling.  And some gnat in the gravy; that is just gross.   Now, frankly, I think calling cats is just nuts.  I mean, what are you trying to do, make them come TO you?!  Geez Louise, the only call I'm making to a cat is "Get Away!" 

I bet you're glad you picked "Whizbang" instead of "Arkie Tinhead", huh.  I don't even know what a tinhead would be, unless you're heading to Oz for oil.  I'm all for referring to Scuzzy as "Colorado Bulldog" though.  And I'll just say Al Gore is TWICE the man he was when he ran for president.  I bet any continent he happens to stand on isn't drifting too far that day.

Look, if you really want to get back at those guys in that other room give me the website.  That would give them what they deserve.  I'll probably use "MichianaMoron" as a sign in and avatar, if I do.  We don't get that deep into hatred and arrogance except for the Funny Bone.  Well, and sometimes the software section.

You know, with this stuff on the southern hemisphere getting colder and the north warmer, I'd say that old saying "Going South for the winter" might be literal.  I could use warmer winters, myself.  And any global climatic or anticlimactic catastrophe that might happen to take out spiders, snakes, hornets and wasps is fine by me.  And Winter.  That, I could do without.  If Colorado does get warmer along with the rest of us up on this end of the tracks then maybe Scuzzy could have a summer that lasts longer than June to July.  Early July.  But something was flooding England, so whether it was Antarctica or Arctica or some Connecticut sized Ice Sculputure I hope they've dried up by now.  And Buff doesn't find boiled wales floating outside his patio.  And if it all boils down to some kid standing on his innertube, and that is making the contents drift and all heck breaking loose, the we oughta tell the fat little punk to sit down and stop making waves.  Stupid kids; first we have to watch what we say since they might wander in here, and then we have them messing with the stupid weather systems while they're splashing around in the pool. 

Ace; "Mrs. Paul's Wale Filets."  That'd take one big bun and a boatload of tartar sauce.

[Buffalo2102]

Personally, I don't think anybody knows what's going on.  All the scientists are guessing and waiting to see what happens so that one of them can stand up and say "I told you so".  Then the one that was closest will receive the Nobel prize for making the best guess.

Meanwhile, we are all under water or flipping over on inner tubes or pushing Wales off our patios (I'm not sure where that one came from).

Whatever is going to happen, I hope it happens soon - the suspense is killing me.

Buff; Who cares anyway - the rugby is on.

[Ace]

WHO SAID ANYONE WAS RANTING YOU LIBERAL-HUGGING TREE HATING WOODHEADED LAKE EFFECT MICHIANIGANDER

ok. hold it.  Sorry.  I'm having more coffee than usual, since it's Saturday.  Shoot; of course it's not fun.  Heck, I'm the dang Jester fool and lots of times I don't even have fun.  Sure, I bring mirth and glad tidings and a smile to myself maybe a couple or three times a day.  Not here, but during other times.

Besides eagerly awaiting the drafting of Al Gore as the democratic nominee and Newt Gingrich as the republican candidate, and probably Al Franken as the compromise third party entrant, I will say once politics creeps into bed with science the cat probably will get out of the bed, and sure, if you want it back, you're gonna have to call it.  You know, if politicians only spoke about things they knew intimately and didn't espouse the thoughts and work of others then those debates could sure run a lot shorter.  Besides phoning it in, on the actual job.  Heck, when it comes to either computers or jokes, I just quote you guys.  If I was left to my own devices, I'd be pretty much stuck with "Here's how you can change the head on your Oral B toothbrush, but only if you didn't toss that weird curvy plastic stick thing." 

Although I take extreme heat and winter seriously, I'm also hopeful Buff doesn't die from suspense.  Although I can't say Rugby would provide that.  I thought the only suspense in Rugby was who was going to get hurt next, in a bad way.  Not like we see it, here.  Unlike American Football, where the addition of body armor and projectile headgear ensures more of a chance of serious harm and permanent dain bramage.

If Buff does die I still want the Angelina photo, since all the ones in the tabloids have her looking really thin and weirder than usual. 

Ace; the winning scientist will probably say "I told you so blub blub blub"

[saoirse]

Al Gore is not a scientist, and much of what he has said is not drawn from data but comes instead from conclusions that are passed on to him that others have made.

That's an extremely important point WB.  Moreover, the IPCC also directs in this fashion.  It's worrying that conclusions are being drawn by members of an elite panel, if you ask me.  I consider the IPCC as the Global Warming wing of the Bilderburg group.

Current climate models are simply being manipulated to support a political hypothesis.  The environmental movement, who have soo keenly jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon, are nothing more than neo-feudalists.

Regardless of our contribution to Global Warming, one thing is clear: decisions will be made on our behalf, whether we support them or not.  A nonsensical global carbon tax is coming our way, which has already been dubbed, a tax on breathing.  A tax on life itself. 

[Whizbang]

Regardless of our contribution to Global Warming, one thing is clear: decisions will be made on our behalf, whether we support them or not.  A nonsensical global carbon tax is coming our way, which has already been dubbed, a tax on breathing.  A tax on life itself.

Exhale only into an EPA approved HEPA filtered catalytic converter paper bag.  ::)  Seriously, global warming advocates have noticed that a problem exists, and skeptics do not address the problem because they choose to believe that there is no problem .  The whole issue would be more seriously addressed if there were not so many unabashed lies that have been injected into the argument.  There are still advocates of the issue that scream that Antarctica is still melting simply because they have chosen a position that is so precarious that it cannot accept deviation from their undeviating conclusion.  That is not science, nor is the denial of this historically unprecedented phenomenon that has caused many of the glaciers in Alaska to lose enormous amounts of accumulated ice and snow.

I first became aware of the emerging  problem in 1980 when an unprecedented high pressure formed over Texas that persisted the whole summer until an upper level low, again over Texas, rescued the US from the drought.  The temperature in Little Rock during the third week of July averaged over 105Ã?ºF.  The next few years moderated a bit, but the problem began to return in 1988.  I have a fig tree in the back yard that once froze back during the winter every two or three years.  It has not frozen back in 19 years and counting.  Tree roots are protruding more every year and are destroying lawnmowers.  The lawnmower retail business is having hard time because people want to get their money back when they hit protruding roots and destroy the mowers.

The contaminant that is preventing global warming advocates from getting on track is the injected hippie mind set that still persists among the extremists in the movement.  The hippie movement wanted a return to nature, abolishment of anything that was not "natural," and a very Utopian philosophy that "everyone should get along and will if we just meditate more and draw the subliminal good out of people."  The irony of this position is that the hippie movement was extremely violent and hostile toward those who rejected it and was anything but peaceful.  Utopian dreams are one thing; reality is another.

Conclusion:  If both sides of the argument would simply reject the emotional injection and study the evidence without preconceived posturing, they would all find that truth is truth and has no political agenda.  It also has no political solution.

[Ace]

Gee, Whiz, I know you just got the swell new vacuum cleaner but no reason to try to use it as a life-support machine.  It's probably bagless, anyway.

In reading "Click and Clack", the newspaper auto repair advice column, they mentioned the Earth will reverse poles in 50,000 years so the North will be South and vice is versa.  At which point the scientists on the one side can point out to the other side "see; I said we were right."

Also heard it said that Al Gore was pretty much vindicated just by receiving the recognition that he pretty much tied for president and had the Supreme Court overturn the call by instant replay.  And it would seem he's chosen statesman over politician, seeing as he doesn't run for office. 

Ace; do scientists use jets when they fly places?  Or still go with hang gliders and hot air balloons?

[Whizbang]

Ace; do scientists use jets when they fly places?  Or still go with hang gliders and hot air balloons?

A lot of them appear to be full of hot air anyway and probably do not need any of the above mentioned. 

[Ace]

Besides how Nature feels about a vacuum.

Ace; even a cool one, from Sears.

[Whizbang]

Also heard it said that Al Gore was pretty much vindicated just by receiving the recognition that he pretty much tied for president and had the Supreme Court overturn the call by instant replay.  And it would seem he's chosen statesman over politician, seeing as he doesn't run for office. 

Not so fast here.  He is once again weighing his options on the presidency because of the boost in popularity that the Noble Prize has accorded.  I suspect that unless he has a definite surge to the top in the polls, that is not likely.  After all, being something in the eyes of the populous is better than almost being something.

I have observed debates since I was in college and have always seen one critical flaw in the procedure.  The facts are rarely the important ingredients in a debate.  Skilled debaters rarely win by the proliferation of facts.  They usually win by making the opposition look stupid.  The objective of any debate is to win, even if one plays very "loose(ly) with the truth."  If the phenomena had first been studied with careful adherence to the scientific method rather than the rapid interjection of a conclusion, we would not be at this point today; and the polarization of thought would not exist to the current degree.  The global warming proposal is winning because the proponents have found support in the most critical parts of society, the media and higher education and is thus being treated as a one-sided debate that should not be a debate at all.  Truth needs no debate from anyone.  Simple conclusions and not quantum leaps should have been sought.  Even President Bush is moving aside to allow the storm to grow.  Car manufacturers and oil companies are using the public alarm to generate support by advocating environmentally friendly methods and machines.  The opportunity to show what the data really indicates has all but disappeared.  Mis-statements and fabrications have turned level heads aside instead of engaging them in analyzing the data.  We have become a very emotionally driven society that does not care to listen to facts.  I have watched people try to make statements regarding flaws in arguments only to see the dissenters jump up in a rage with totally irrelevant nonsense.  The favorite ploy is to accuse someone of being racist, liberal, right-wing conservative, fundamentalist Christian, or any of several other handles that automatically will turn someone off.  I once told a friend about a man that I had observed who seemed to have a high degree of integrity.  Not surprisingly, his immediate question was, "Is he a Democrat or a Republican?"  That was all that mattered.   :-\  The global warming issue will continue to garner more support; people will continue to lose more freedom; the re-distribution of global mass will continue unabated; and no one will see what the issue really is nor want to admit it if he does for fear of embarrassment and losing the egocentric satisfaction he has gained in holding his position.  Ironically, that statement applies to both liberal and conservative camps.  After all, the central issue here is to win the debate and make the other side look stupid.  Forget the facts; they only get in the way of maintaining one's self-esteem in his own mind.

Pride cometh before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

[scuzzy]

Pride cometh before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Okay, not so fast. I realize that Ace may not be my bestest buddy and all, but he's really not that bad. Besides, usually a strategically placed banana peel cometh before a fall.

I admit that Ace can be naughty, which rhymes with haughty, but I'd never call him a hottie. Especially with his big feet and all around girth. But I agree that a pride of lions can certainly be destructive.

Scuzzy; When I die and they lay me to rest, gonna go to the place that's the best. When I lay me down to die...

[Ace]

Listen, my friend, I don't care if you sing and dance over in the room with the TV set but that's no reason to come over here and do your Norman Greenbomb impersonation.  But I do appreciate your standing up for me in light of Whiz's debating global warming with himself.

I try, in a debate, to make myself look stupid so that it will unnerve my opponent and fluster his filibuster.  I've long ago settled with being something, as opposed to almost something.

Scuzzy has a level head, and it helps him keep his hat on straight.  Did Jimmy Carter win a Peace Prize?  He seems to be going after everyone, recently.  My father in law is also getting feisty as he gets old; he probably thinks nobody is gonna slap an old guy...  He still prefers duct tape as the universal repair of anything, in his habitat.  So, anyway, was the guy Democrat or Republican?  I remember in grade school the taunts outside, when LBJ was running against Goldwater:  "Demorat!"  "Repunklincun!" 

Ace; I'm weighing my options, to see if they're heavier than me.