Faris gets it wrong--several times-- in the first few grafs on his piece about Al Gore's Nobel Prize. He asks can this or that end or stop war.

But the prize is called the Peace Prize-- not the anti-war prize.

Peace is not the opposite of war, but it is a war-free condition. And the question should have been, "what has Al Gore done to enhance the prospects for peace?" or "do the actions of Al Gore really work to promote peace?"

And the answer, embedded like reporters on the front lines in a modern American war, is yes. Raising the awareness of the looming problems associated with global warming and working hard to head off the process and its consequences does indeed raise the odds in favor of peace.

When one considers that fatheads like Bush and the conservative dittoheads don't even admit there is a problem, despite an unending avalanche of evidence to the contrary, the very first step needed to address the problem is to get the people of the world, with the exception of Bushites who cannot be made to see reason, to realize that the problem is large and very nearly immediate. If the world seems sometimes to be settling into a China vs USA struggle for global influence, it is worth noting that most of China's population is essentially coastal. And while the US has Chicago and a handful of other high-elevation cities, its coast has a tremendous population-- Start with Boston, and wander down towards New York, Baltimore and DC, continue down to Miami and around to what's left of New Orleans and Houston, then mentally hop over to San Diego, and L.A. then up to San Francicso. In just these two countries, the number of the directly affected number in the hundreds of millions. Worldwide, the current coastal population is what? A couple of billion? More?

The last Ice Age brought with it the Wisconsin Glacier, a meteorological phenomenon the likes of which would, were it to occur now would turn the world on its ear, if not end civilization completely. The scientific projections of unfettered global warming cannot fail to have as severe an effect on the world, and on us all. If there is a chance to prevent the shoe from dropping, it will only be prevented if people like Al Gore can make a case strong enough to persuade the entire world to get a grip and try to make it happen.

Man, could you be more off base?

First, 'preventing' global warming will serve to be the biggest joke since the 'flat world' arguement. Given that's the case, isn't Gore the Fool in Chief?

Questions you may want to ponder:

If global warming is bad - it supposes that there is a 'good' temperature. What is this magical temperature? Why is it good'?

Can't the activity of the sun effect tempurature more then any carbon emissions-- by a factor of 1000?

Don't animal farts , accoring to the UN, effect carbon levels 3X's more the any human emissions?

Why were scientist worried about global 'cooling' in the 60's? Why didn't that happen? Why are they 'right' this time?

Why are you and so many others willing to destroy the standard of living for the poor on false science?

before spouting a bunch of nonsense and drivel.

cesler:

Man, could you be more off base? First, 'preventing' global warming will serve to be the biggest joke since the 'flat world' arguement.

The "flat world" argument, at the time that it was a joke, was made without any support against the very real empirical data that was objectively obtained that unquestionably supported the oposing argument. A real world parallel would be some pathetic hack stating something is wrong because he says so, dispite literally decades of research involving hundreds of labs, tens of thousands of dollars, and literally tens of millions of pages of data that all support the oposing argument.

cesler:

If global warming is bad - it supposes that there is a 'good' temperature. What is this magical temperature? Why is it good'?

Your premise is wrong. ANTHROPOGENIC GAS FORCING of global warming is bad... Without some global warming the dark side of the planet would have a temperature at least 100 degrees C cooler than the sunny side, which itself would be too cold to sustain life. The problem is the greenhouse gasses have sustained a narrow range for the last half a billion years or so, and within that range all the ecosystems developed for the conditions that range allowed... We are digging up a lot of carbon and spewing it into the air (fossil fuels), which changes the conditions for all the ecosystems very rapidly... far too rapidly for the ecosystems to adapt and potentially outside of the range at which they would be able to adapt given time (hundreds or even thousands of years) necessary.

cesler:

Can't the activity of the sun effect tempurature more then any carbon emissions-- by a factor of 1000?

No. That has been a flagrant lie propagated by 3 scientists, there are several tens of thousands of scientists that not only disagree with that statement but have completely and utterly disproven it. Solar fluctuation is assumed to be responsible for less than 3% of the climate fluctuation of the past several hundred thousand years.

cesler:

Don't animal farts , accoring to the UN, effect carbon levels 3X's more the any human emissions?

No. The IPCC report does address methane from animal sources, but it is only ~20% of the methane, which is less than half as significant of a greenhouse gas as CO2... so at best animal farts (mostly from human domesticated livestock) is ~1/12th the non-H20 greenhouse gas forcing issue. Much of this methane, like the CO2 that was in the atmosphere before we started digging more up and spewing it out there, is part of the balance that the Earth had when the natural world developed... We are concerned with what is pushing us outside that balance.

cesler:

Why were scientist worried about global 'cooling' in the 60's? Why didn't that happen? Why are they 'right' this time?

The "global cooling" was not a consensus of the scientific community... It was a theory offered up by one scientist that had support and following from a sparse few others. This is similar to BS trends like "cold fusion" or "the hydrogen economy"... very few scientists considered it as something big, but the media got ahold of it and a few politicians pushed it with their rhetoric... so society heard a lot more about it then was merited. In the case of global cooling, the theory was that the aerosol pollutants would reflect more incoming solar energy than the greenhouse gasses would trap, so there would be a net loss in solar energy held within the atmosphere... When we started cleaning up aerosols then the balance shifted dramatically, but that was never postulated as anything other than a temporary effect. At this point the entire scientific community (with less than 0.3% holding out, many of whom recieve funding from groups that specifically WANT skepticism) has compiled enough evidence that there is a basic universal verdict... It's now simply understood to be so. This is VERY different from media driven postulates that had little scientific backing.

cesler:

Why are you and so many others willing to destroy the standard of living for the poor on false science?

I want you to try really hard to wrap your head around this concept:

If you WASTE less energy, you will spend less money... thus IMPROVING your money situation and in most cases improving your lifestyle.

If we reduce fossil fuel emmissions, we will reduce other toxins that are emmitted when fossil fuels are burned, dramatically improving health, and improving lifestyles.

If we reduce energy imports, we obtain greater independence and much greater national security, reducing the amount we have to waste on senseless energy resources by ~190 billion/year... which dramatically improves our lifestyle.

If we produce new technology that uses less energy or produces clean energy, we would be able to sell that technology to other countries (which are concerned about global warming), which would improve our economy and provide jobs... which improves our lifestyle.

Please become better informed and try thinking just a little on occasion. Thanks.

Here is the thing. People have pondered your questions. If you were interested in answers, you wouldn't still be asking those questions. For the fun of it, since you won't believe me, here are some answers:

If global warming is bad - it supposes that there is a 'good' temperature. What is this magical temperature? Why is it good'?
It is not the argument that our current temperature is "best" or magical. It is the argument that the species and societies on the Earth have adapted to the current temperatures. Many live on coasts and in places with just-enough water to survive. The point is that a sustained global change in this temperature (presumably up or down) has effects on the species and societies that have adapted to the current temperatures.

Can't the activity of the sun effect tempurature more then any carbon emissions-- by a factor of 1000?
Yes, but again, this is not the argument. Changes in solar activity can't account for the recent changes in global temperatures, but human activity can. If you can find a way to reduce the activity of the sun to hold temperatures stable, good luck.

Don't animal farts , accoring to the UN, effect carbon levels 3X's more the any human emissions?
Methane is a greenhouse gas and it actually comes mostly from burps, not farts. Presumably, if methane from livestock was a major cause of global warming that would also be due to human activity since we are raising the livestock. Some have argued that moving to a vegetarian diet would reduce global warming. Just because you can find factors in addition to CO2 doesn't mean that global warming is a hoax or that you can't "prevent" global warming. It just means you have to do more than just reduce CO2.

Why were scientist worried about global 'cooling' in the 60's? Why didn't that happen? Why are they 'right' this time?
SOME scientists were worried about global cooling, but they were dealing with short-term shifts in temperature. If you look at long-term shifts, the decreasing temperatures in the 60's were only a blip. While Time magazine and some scientists may have over-blown the cooling in the 60's, there was not the consensus that there is now. I consider thousands of scientists conferring on a report to be more reliable than one Time magazine article.

Why are you and so many others willing to destroy the standard of living for the poor on false science?
I reject your premise that it is false science. I also reject your premise that preventing global warming would reduce the standard of living for the poor. It is a challenge to address global warming in a cost-effective way. However, many economists have pointed out that the costs associated with prevention are less than the costs associated with recovery and adaptation. The longer we wait the more expensive it becomes. There are also arguments that we can create economic incentives using market-based approaches. So, assuming it isn't false science (it isn't) the economical argument brings up a challenge but not a rebuttal.

Makes this argument about as fallible as any other theory I've seen. I love theories. They cause an awful lot of debate.

Well, you get a 10 for the smarmy tone, but a 1 for science.

You see, there is this thing called the 'scientific method'. It is used by scientist to prove a postulation- you can look that up. The bottom line is, global warming can't be proven to be effected by anything- because it is impossible to duplicate the complexities of the ecosystem.

Further, the temperature of the planet has been in flux since the beggining of time. It is silly to assume that, since the ave. temp. has been x for a number of years, it should always be x.

Also, let me give you a quick economics lesson. Fuel (gas) used today is, by the nature of mankind, the most efficient available- that is why it is the least expensive way to get something done.

Consider the fools who purchased electric cars. I am sure they feel great and like they are leaders in 'saving the environmnet'. However, with a 15 year payback, it is probably the worst investment you can make. This is completely ignoring the multitude of chemicals required to fabricate and power a battery.

Hey, lets require poor folks to buy $15 light bulbs when a .98 one will do! Or buy solar panels- with a 30 year payback.

And your history is pretty much wrong. Open a book.

Sad.

Had you even tried to come back with some kind of talking points I might have bothered... Simply saying "you are wrong" and "read some books" shows you have nothing and are simply responding as a child would when corrected by someone who is not a specific authority figure.

I hope that one day you actually pull your head out of your ass and learn something, but until then I'll simply have to write you off as a lost cause.

BTW, I have read several thousand books, stated not as hyperbole or exageration but simple truth. I'm a member of MENSA that scored near genius level on a recent IQ test. I've had nearly a decade of advanced education and work in an aplied science business... My father has written portions of those very books that you suggest I read. One of us is a complete and utter fool...

I'll leave you with that.