Stockholm Stiffs Leonardo DiCaprio
I've had a hard time taking the Nobel Peace Prize seriously since Pol Pot died without winning one. Still, I have to admit that Al Gore is in good company:
Buck up, Dick Cheney! 2008 could be your year!
Comments to "Stockholm Stiffs Leonardo DiCaprio":
Oh, you suck. I had a comment two seconds ago with this idea one thread down - now this shows up. *pebblekick*
John C. Randolph | October 12, 2007, 9:26am | #
I'm just waiting for them to give it to Sean Penn.-jcr
If the Nobel commission had any sense of humor or irony they would give it to Dick Cheney and then sit back and watch the fun. I would pay to see that.
stuartl | October 12, 2007, 9:28am | #
Can't you let the poor guy be a hero, just for one day? W took away the presidency from him, he should get something to build his self esteem.Ken Shultz | October 12, 2007, 9:30am | #
If only he'd turn it down!Well I guess we can add this to Al Gore's long list of achievements...
Born
Elected
Elected Higher
Made Movie
Nobel Prize
And he's just getting started!
Geez, if he makes another movie, how are they gonna top this?
rah62 | October 12, 2007, 9:31am | #
He needs self-esteem? Then let him go to a shrink.The Nobel Peace Prize has strayed away from its normal roots (peace vs. war) and into social commentary. Remember last year's winner, involved with "microloans" in developing countries? That prize was social commentary and had nothing to do with peace vs. war.
JasonL | October 12, 2007, 9:34am | #
To be honest, though, and I was very much an "Anyone but Gore" voter in that election, I don't mind this version of Gore so much.He, like joe, sees nefarious corporatism where skepticism suffices as an explanation, but he isn't campaigning, so it is better. Too, he was correct on the science, and being right is good.
My reservations about the guy are really that I fear him as a technocrat. I imagine him convening a panel of scientists to set policy instead of just talking to them about facts. Too, he wanted to disarm me.
In summary, my opinion of Gore is improved, but still nervous.
Ken Shultz | October 12, 2007, 9:37am | #
Actually, of all his achievements, the one I think I respect most is the initiative he took in creating the internet.MANBEARPIG | October 12, 2007, 9:38am | #
This is good. It will finally get attention to the Climate Change crisis. Papers will write about and politicians will waste money on it and governments will take away our money and liberties in its name.No longer will the Global Climate Death Beast languish on the fringes of the internet. Now it is front and center - thus says some Swedes.
Damn it, I didn't see Jesse's Cheney comment before posting mine. Damn your subversive hide, Walker!
I must've missed the essay that explains how "preaching radical economic changes to avoid global catastrophe" = "Peace".
Dan T. | October 12, 2007, 9:46am | #
Hint to Reason: the old "let's find the least flattering photo we can to publish" really does make you look petty and jealous.Which may be the point. If so, pls disregard.
I believe that should be "Oslo Stiffs Leonardo DiCaprio." The Peace Prize is the one that is handed out in Norway, not Sweden.
MANBEARPIG | October 12, 2007, 9:49am | #
Norway. Sweden. They're all dirty Scandanavians.And MP, here is the essay explaining it:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
Marcvs | October 12, 2007, 9:52am | #
Hint to Reason: the old "let's find the least flattering photo we can to publish" really does make you look petty and jealous.Or maybe they are trying to drive home the point that this guy is a giant douche.
And why would they be jealous? It's not like they were hoping to win it themselves..
I know what you mean Jesse. The SA gets no props from me since they dissed Tookie.
joe | October 12, 2007, 9:53am | #
rah62,Keeping people from falling into a river is better than pulling them out, and that goes for promoting peace, too.
Resource shortages, ecological collapse, and intractable poverty cause wars. Look at Africa.
joe | October 12, 2007, 9:54am | #
Or maybe they are trying to drive home the point that this guy is a giant douche.Yeah, that seems to be the level of commentary we get from Reason about Al Gore, so you're probably right.
anon | October 12, 2007, 9:54am | #
Whomever said the Nobel prize was a politically correct popularity contest sure was a loon.K. | October 12, 2007, 9:57am | #
I'm happy about this. As they mention in a recent economist, global warming is like a prisoner's dilemma game and we need less free riders.anon | October 12, 2007, 9:57am | #
"y'all jus' jellus!" - Dan T.Enlightened I tells ya! En. Light. Tened.
Episiarch | October 12, 2007, 9:59am | #
Yeah, that seems to be the level of commentary we get from Reason about Al Gore, so you're probably right.Well, he could have been the turd sandwich--it was never clear--so you are correct in pointing out that Marcvs has not fully researched his position. Shame, Marcvs, shame.
Ken Shultz | October 12, 2007, 10:00am | #
"Resource shortages, ecological collapse, and intractable poverty cause wars."If anyone had suggested that joe was going to credit Al Gore with preventing any of that, I'd have said they were crazy.
ed | October 12, 2007, 10:02am | #
Resource shortages, ecological collapse, and intractable poverty cause wars. Look at Africa.Look at tribalism. That's what has kept Africa a perpetual basket case while much of the civilized world has prospered with fewer natural resources.
Episiarch | October 12, 2007, 10:02am | #
If anyone had suggested that joe was going to credit Al Gore with preventing any of that, I'd have said they were crazy.I think you fail to understand what Al means to joe. Think "Jesus" and you're getting there.
Tobycat | October 12, 2007, 10:04am | #
"Oh Christ, I could care less!" --Doris Lessing, upon hearing that she just got a Nobel Prize this year (for Literature).Also note: Gore didn't get the prize for Science.
Speaking of science, notice how all this years winners talked about how it capped their life-long achievements in their careers. What did Gore actually do anyway, other than produce a Powerpoint slideshow last year?
Dave Woycechowsky | October 12, 2007, 10:04am | #
Yeah, that seems to be the level of commentary we get from Reason about Al Gore, so you're probably right.It isn't usually Jesse Walker with this kind of crappola, though.
I would prefer Al Gore to be president, but some people are saying Clinton/Gore.
Ken Shultz | October 12, 2007, 10:05am | #
"If anyone had suggested that joe was going to credit Al Gore with preventing any of that, I'd have said they were crazy."Able to wipe out ecological collapse in a single movie...
"Look! ...over at that press conference!"
"It's a bird."
"It's a plane."
"It's Al Gore!"
Wow, I knew Al Gore was a technocratic, power hungry, control freak asshole but I didn't know he had become such a big asshole that joe would actually get stuck permanently inside him. But hey, like attracts like, like flies to....
P Brooks | October 12, 2007, 10:09am | #
"I would prefer Al Gore to be president, but some people are saying Clinton/Gore."*muffled gunshot, thump*
Dave | October 12, 2007, 10:12am | #
"Resource shortages, ecological collapse, and intractable poverty cause wars. Look at Africa."Thing is, none of those were caused by global warming.
“Before setting ourselves the task of ridding the world of animal flesh, we might try ridding it instead of unspeakable poverty, hunger and disease,’’ Seré points out."
Parallel to that, I would say that before we set ourselves to the task of ridding the world of supposed climate change, perhaps we should be ridding it of unspeakable poverty, hunger, and disease first.
ed | October 12, 2007, 10:13am | #
Gore wins the big one.Polar bears and penguins cum.
Pope washes Al's feet.
george | October 12, 2007, 10:16am | #
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3719791&page=1By MARCUS BARAM
Oct. 12, 2007
One day before Friday's announcement that he was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors.
The ruling came on a challenge from a UK school official who did not want to show the film to students. High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."
Burton found that screening the film in British secondary schools violated laws barring the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom. But he allowed the film to be shown on the condition that it is accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" views, saying that the film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate change.
george | October 12, 2007, 10:18am | #
fuck you joeAn Ottawa Reader | October 12, 2007, 10:19am | #
Sad thing is, if I heard Cheney and Bush both expected to have the prize by now for dealing with Saddam, I wouldn't be surprised.joe | October 12, 2007, 10:23am | #
Ken,Microloans overcome intractable poverty.
Prevending global warming prevents resource shortages and ecological collapse.
ed,
Cause and effect. As we've seen in Iraq, people turn to tribalismm as a protective mechanism against harsh conditions.
Episiarch, puh,
It's pathetic to see you try to smear me because you can't refute my points.
Dave,
Thing is, none of those were caused by global warming. No, but we certainly don't need any of those things to get worse - which they will, if rising sea levels, more severe stores, and serious changes in weather patterns come about because of global warming. Did the point of the hoary old "pulling people out of a river" saying I refernced escape you? I thought it was a rather familiar cliche.
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 10:23am | #
Well, to be fair as I recall Arafat shared the award with Rabin at a time when the Oslo Accords seemed on their way to success.Reason's Global Warming Reporting | October 12, 2007, 10:24am | #
Nine significant errors?Damn, I am so jealous!
Dave Woycechowsky | October 12, 2007, 10:26am | #
Well, to be fair as I recall Arafat shared the award with Rabin at a time when the Oslo Accords seemed on their way to success.and Shimon Peres
I don't know, joe, if you can call it smearing. You put the Goreacle on a pretty damn high pedestal.
carrick | October 12, 2007, 10:27am | #
Your tears are so yummy!If you had even an ounce of integrity in your body, I might be hurt by that.
But you share way too many key personality characteristics with your good buddy Al.
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 10:28am | #
Ok, so Peres, Rabin and Arafat shared the award jointly.thoreau | October 12, 2007, 10:33am | #
Show some gratitude, guys. The man gave us the internet so we could post snarky comments!:)
joe | October 12, 2007, 10:36am | #
No, Episiarch, I don't put him on a high pedestal.You just retreat into that claim when your own smearing of him is so throughly refuted.
joe | October 12, 2007, 10:37am | #
Hey, carrick,Why don't you just call him my boyfriend and get it over with?
Arthur My Friend | October 12, 2007, 10:38am | #
Dan T --Come on, that's not that unflattering a photo. A little goofy, but Al always looks kind of goofy. I've seen much worse pics of him.
I would think all the gas he's passed from all the donuts he's eaten would make him enemy #1 of the environment. All the caribou in ANWR are lookin' at him saying damn he stink.
carrick | October 12, 2007, 10:39am | #
Why don't you just call him my boyfriend and get it over with?I've read no reports indicated that Al was bi.
Windypundit | October 12, 2007, 10:39am | #
Hint to Reason: the old "let's find the least flattering photo we can to publish" really does make you look petty and jealous.I agree. It's a cheap shot that's only funny when it's John McCain.
Somebody Loves You, Don't You Know It | October 12, 2007, 10:42am | #
Windypundit --Now that's an unflattering photo.
Pro Libertate | October 12, 2007, 10:48am | #
It's the Nobel Prize Committee's prize and their money. However, I do think calling something the "Peace" prize, then handing it out for things not directly connected to "peace" dilutes the value of the prize. As does awarding it to people whose sole contribution to peace has been a recent cessation of a lifetime of violence.Episiarch | October 12, 2007, 10:49am | #
Hint to Reason: the old "let's find the least flattering photo we can to publish" really does make you look petty and jealous.Actually, it's funny, punctures windbags, and probably takes some serious searching to get good ones. All told, good fun.
J sue D | October 12, 2007, 10:52am | #
I agree. It's a cheap shot that's only funny when it's John McCain.It all depends on who's ox is being goerd, doesn't it. Humor, being an integral part of H&R, demands that unflattering photos and caricatures be used occasionally. Lighten the hell up, folks!
mediageek | October 12, 2007, 10:57am | #
Why don't you just call him my boyfriend and get it over with?Joe and Al, sittin' in a tree Kay-Eye-Ess-Ess-Eye-En-Gee...
That do it for ya?
;-)
Lurker Kurt | October 12, 2007, 10:58am | #
Microloans overcome intractable poverty.If microloans make people more wealthy, won't they increase their consumption of resources, including fossil fuels and thereby increase global warming?
Prevending global warming prevents resource shortages ...
I've never heard of global warming causing resource shortages. What resources would become more scarce because of global warming? Wouldn't global temperature increases make it easier to get at resources in the arctic and antarctic?
...and ecological collapse
And finally, what ecological collapse? I believe it is getting warming but I am still agnostic as to how much is due to natural vairations in the earth's climate and how much is due to anthropocentric reasons.
The worst case scenarios I have read talk of more violent storms, low lying coastal areas flooded, and formerly tropical diseases moving northward and southward, not environmental collapse.
Apocolyptic statements such as "ecological collapse" from environmentalist cause me to doubt their sincerity and make me and others wonder if they are latching on to global warming bandwagon because it furthers their anti-capitalist goals.
I think they should've given it to Putin, personally. He's been working hard to keep the peace in Russia. Even if it does require killing a few Chechens here and there.
Timothy | October 12, 2007, 11:00am | #
Or maybe they are trying to drive home the point that this guy is a giant douche.Don't blame me, I voted for the turd sandwich.
joe | October 12, 2007, 11:13am | #
Lurker Kurt,If microloans make people more wealthy, won't they increase their consumption of resources, including fossil fuels and thereby increase global warming? It's not quite that simple. Poverty tends to create quite a bit of environmental distruction, too. Think of deforestation caused by people too poor to buy fuel, or the poaching of rare species. And then there's the fact that wealth levels and economic activity can have widely divergent effects on the environment, depending on specific practices. If the microloan-induced economic growth allows a village to install a wind-powered generator, it's all good.
These are is the principle behind Sustainable Development - that human economic development is a necessary condition for environmental protection/restoration, and that it is HOW growth occurs, not WHETHER growth occurs, that determines its impacts on the environment.
What resources would become more scarce because of global warming? Wouldn't global temperature increases make it easier to get at resources in the arctic and antarctic?
I'm talking about on the local level. If people have to abandon their homes, or if their fishing economy is wiped out by changing habitat, or if their fields are turned to desert, those people are going to have a great deal of trouble.
I believe it is getting warming but I am still agnostic as to how much is due to natural vairations in the earth's climate and how much is due to anthropocentric reasons. Well, the people in a better position than you or I to draw a conclusion about that are pretty close to unanimous on that question. The IPCC - I'm sorry, the Nobel Prize Winning IPCC - has set the odds that the temperature changes we're seeing are natural at less than 1%.
The worst case scenarios I have read talk of more violent storms, low lying coastal areas flooded, and formerly tropical diseases moving northward and southward, not environmental collapse.
You don't think those things can cause ecological collapse?
Randolph Carter | October 12, 2007, 11:15am | #
Everybody needs to chill out on the Gore-hatred. He's a career politician, so he's probably a douche. Many nobel prize winners suck. It's really... not that big a deal.love him or hate him, I bet everyone here wishes they had parlayed a powerpoint presentation in to millions of dollars and a nobel peace prize.
DJL | October 12, 2007, 11:15am | #
Can we nominate the entire Reason staff, including former editor Virginia Postrel for the prize? They've done more for the good of humanity than this Gore character.The committee gave this prize to a committed terrorist killer in Yaser Arafat for God's sake. It is not like the award means anything. It used to be a nice pat on the back for people like say Anwar Sadat or Albert Switzer who took real risks and did amazing things. Now they give it to some guy who took the risk of making a movie of himself giving a grossly inaccurate lecture taking a politically correct view that was guaranteed to bring him accolades and popularity. Yeah, that was real act of political courage. This award long ago ceased to be the Nobel Prize for peace and became the Nobel Prize for world leftist politics. Frankly, given the standard set by the past few winners, I really think they should have given the award to Mugabe or Chavez.
Ayn_Randian | October 12, 2007, 11:27am | #
joe -I am trying to figure out what the hell you mean by "environmental collapse"
As we've seen in Iraq, people turn to tribalismm as a protective mechanism against harsh conditions.
What? Yeah, hence all those white people tribes out in the Mojave desert /snark. I can't believe you would make the serious suggestion that resource-rich Africa turned to tribalism for...wait for it...a lack of resources. Yikes.
So Al Gore won a prize for making some predictions about global warming, even though nobody knows whether those predictions are correct, and Al Gore isn't even a scientist. It gets better. Gore's guesses supposedly brought peace to the world! What can't wild guesses about the distant future accomplish?
Tim Lambert | October 12, 2007, 11:34am | #
Those crazy Norwegians even gave the Peace Prize to Norman Borlaug!joe | October 12, 2007, 11:36am | #
Ayn Randian,I was using the term to refer to environmental changes that destroy, or vastly reduce, the ability of a place to support a healthy ecosystem and human population. For example, the salinization of formerly-fertile areas in Mesopotamia through unwise irrigation practices.
As we've seen in Iraq, people turn to tribalismm as a protective mechanism against harsh conditions.
The phrase "lack of resources" appears nowhere in this sentence. Do you know why that is? BECAUSE I DIDN'T ATTRIBUTE TRIBALISM IN AFRICA TO A LACK OF RESOURCES.
Dan T. | October 12, 2007, 11:36am | #
This award long ago ceased to be the Nobel Prize for peace and became the Nobel Prize for world leftist politics.Well of course - a peace prize will go to leftists just like a Nobel Prize for War would always go to right-wingers.
Dan, that would have been a 5-percenter at LGF, but it doesn't really apply here. Try harder.
Minion of URKOBOLD | October 12, 2007, 11:38am | #
MANBEARPIG | October 12, 2007, 9:49am | #*prepares TAINT GRAPPLING HOOK
Norway. Sweden. They're all dirty Scandanavians.
I know that Al Gore tends to bring out the reactionary best from Reason, but this post is even more pathetic than I would have expected.
Ayn_Randian | October 12, 2007, 11:45am | #
Resource shortages, ecological collapse, and intractable poverty cause wars. Look at Africa.-- joe @ 9:53 AM
Reeding iz hard, joe.
joe | October 12, 2007, 11:51am | #
Randian,Mapz r hard, too. Ever look at Mali, Muaritania, or Somalia?
Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | October 12, 2007, 11:51am | #
Next year:Joint award:
Dick Cheney, Bono (one name only), and what the hell, Paris Hilton!
Anyway, once you work through your confusion and defensiveness, maybe you can work on trying to make a point.
Richard | October 12, 2007, 11:52am | #
I'm with National Review: The U.S. military, every year, should win the Peace Prize, as the world’s most reliable guarantor of peace.But on to Gore: How do you think he feels knowing, deep down, that he only gets awards from people who are trying to stick it to Bush?
Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | October 12, 2007, 11:53am | #
We can call it "the year of almost intolerable harmony."Dan T. | October 12, 2007, 11:53am | #
I know that Al Gore tends to bring out the reactionary best from Reason, but this post is even more pathetic than I would have expected.You must be new to Reason...
joe | October 12, 2007, 11:54am | #
The U.S. military, every year, should win the Peace Prize, as the world’s most reliable guarantor of peace.Sure, just look how peaceful Iraq is.
Do they offer Nobel Prizes for the Facilitation of Ethnic Cleansing?
Richard | October 12, 2007, 11:59am | #
The US military is giving Iraq its only shot a peace and freedom. Anyway, we all know that Al Gore should get the Nobel Prize for warning us of the danger of ManBearPig:www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxqhwZGefc4
VM | October 12, 2007, 12:00pm | #
the military for peace?how about the Free Trade people getting the peace prize. Like Timbro.
That's the way to encourage peace, there, um, "Richard".
But you are quite the muscular, macho, tough sort, I can see. May I bate over your picture later?
Jesse, if your only step to help the environment would be to stop wanking into kleenex you would be personally responsible for eliminating mankind's need for another 5000 acres lost to garbage dumps.
carrick | October 12, 2007, 12:03pm | #
Do they offer Nobel Prizes for the Facilitation of Ethnic Cleansing?A good friend of mine spent six months in Ramadi getting shot at on a regular basis. He volunteered for duty well after the war started so he new he would serve in Iraq.
For you to imply in anyway that he was there to help in the ethnic cleansing of Iraq puts you beneath contempt.
Your past opposition to the war has been mostly principled, but this steps way over the line.
Richard | October 12, 2007, 12:05pm | #
Certainly, VM. And I'm all in favor of free trade, but I don't think it's going to calm down the wahhabists much.bry | October 12, 2007, 12:05pm | #
I agree with Arthur - this particular pic is not bad. Lately he has been looking more and more like a vampire. The guy scares the shit out of me.Mr. Nice Guy | October 12, 2007, 12:05pm | #
"The Nobel Peace Prize has strayed away from its normal roots (peace vs. war) and into social commentary."I agree with this. I see your point joe, but it's a bit of a stretch, and I think Confucius had something with the rectification of names. It's not that what Gore or the microloans winner person did was not laudable, but peace in the narrow sense is mighty important and should get a prize devoted to it alone. It's for this reason I think the folks who area all enraged about Arafat miss the picture totally, if a bad man works against his comrades to make peace then he deserves a reward for that.
george-you realize that in highlighting Gore's faults in exagerrating you yourself did the same thing by bolding the part of the quote that said he exagerrating and leaving the part where it said '"the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact"'
"What did Gore actually do anyway, other than produce a Powerpoint slideshow last year?" Well, that is one way to look at it. He also took a great deal of his time and resources to make the presentation, perfect it (in a rhetorical sense, the film [which essentially was the powerpoint presentation]) had great critical acclaim), and travel around the country presenting it and raising awareness of an issue that nearly all leading scientific groups think is the crucial one of our times.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 12, 2007, 12:08pm | #
"The U.S. military, every year, should win the Peace Prize, as the world’s most reliable guarantor of peace."Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), Kosovo, Afghanistan...
Minion of URKOBOLD | October 12, 2007, 12:12pm | #
RICHARD HADN'T HEARD OF "WHHABISTS" UNTIL RECENTLY, SO HE HASN'T A CLUE.HE HAS, HOWEVER, HEARD OF CRANE (brand) TAINT BLEACH.
WHEN YOU NEED YOUR TAINT TO SPARKLE MORE THAN NORMAL. WHEN YOUR TAINT IS READY FOR THAT SPECIAL DAY, CRANE (brand) TAINT BLEACH IS THERE FOR YOU.
TRY IT ON YOUR NEW T ZONE.
Ayn_Randian | October 12, 2007, 12:13pm | #
joe - dance around it all you like. You said that Africa is short on resources, which it clearly is not. Regardless, Hong Kong has like, no resources and it turned out OK. Same-same for Iceland. It's bad philosophies that create disaster, not bad living conditions.carrick | October 12, 2007, 12:13pm | #
Nine significant errors made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration" trumps "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact".Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 12:16pm | #
carrick,Well, I think it is fair to say that the U.S. invasion inadvertantly helped to promote ethnic cleansing; or rather, provided a new playing field where such could happen. Whether one considers that facilitation is another matter. Thus (am I'm not the first person by any stretch to note this), lots of unplanned bad shit can happen in wars - those supporting a particular war ought to take that into consideration before starting one.
VM | October 12, 2007, 12:18pm | #
"those supporting a particular war ought to take that into consideration before starting one."S of S:
exactly! However, Dickie up there gets all decked out with his Pickelhaube and everything!
Jimmy Smith | October 12, 2007, 12:20pm | #
Joe is right. Over consumption by Al and Tipper (look at those round faces and tell me farmers aren't having to work harder and longer) causes more fossil fuel use, thereby causing greater global warming, requiring more AC use. Man, this is endless. Sure hope Al got his award electronically to cut down on being part of the problem. Happy he got the internet right anyway.Shannon Chamberlain | October 12, 2007, 12:20pm | #
Frankly, I'm just to impressed that he managed to turn a fairly mediocre PowerPoint presentation (with factual errors, no less) into a $1 million prize. That's the Nobel Prize for Alchemy right there.Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 12:21pm | #
I gotta say, I'm really not that enthusiastic either way about Gore getting this prize. Indeed, the thing is only time will tell if Gore is actually right.Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 12:22pm | #
Full Disclosure: I've not seen Al Gore's documentary.R C Dean | October 12, 2007, 12:28pm | #
Certainly, VM. And I'm all in favor of free trade, but I don't think it's going to calm down the wahhabists much.Quite the opposite. The Wahhabists are all about creating very conservative theocratic societies, which by necessity must have limited contact with the Great Satan and its many minions. Open borders, or even open marketplaces, and repressive societies are fundamentally incompatable.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 12, 2007, 12:32pm | #
carrick-you obviously dislike Al Gore, but don't let your dislike warp reality around you. "Substantially" means "to a considerable amount or extent." I'm afraid that trumps "alarmis" or "exagerration." The man made a film that was "to a considerable amount or extent" spot on, but he exagerrated when he made his points (not an unheard of thing for one to do when promoting a cause).Guy Montag | October 12, 2007, 12:32pm | #
I would prefer Al Gore to be president, but some people are saying Clinton/Gore.I just wish for him to run, nomination or not. Hope he announces that Edwards would be his Attorney General, Kucinich for NASA director and Jimmy Carter for Sec. Def.
Dave Woycechowsky | October 12, 2007, 12:33pm | #
A good friend of mine spent six months in Ramadi getting shot at on a regular basis. He volunteered for duty well after the war started so he new he would serve in Iraq.What is his bodycount? Did you even ask?
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 12:34pm | #
R.C. Dean,Yet the middle east, particularly countries on the Arabian peninsula, are fully engaged in trade. The peninsula is radically different than it was fifty to sixty years ago in part because of all the trade that part of the world engages in.
ed | October 12, 2007, 12:34pm | #
time will tell if Gore is actually rightCorrect. Let's all meet back here in 100 years to discuss it. In the meantime, try not to exhale, go to work or build anything, just in case.
Dave Woycechowsky | October 12, 2007, 12:36pm | #
Frankly, I'm just to impressed that he managed to turn a fairly mediocre PowerPoint presentation (with factual errors, no less) into a $1 million prize.He got the prize mostly for being a person of power and influence who avoided being co-opted by moneyed interests on global warming issues.
The PowerPoint presentation ain't the thing hier.
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 12:38pm | #
R.C. Dean,In other words, the Arabian peninsula is quite different from what it was when Wilfred Theisiger was ambling about the empty quarter, etc. in the late 1940s.
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 12:39pm | #
ed,You ought to realize that wasn't my point at all.
carrick | October 12, 2007, 12:39pm | #
Mr Nice Guy, from an engineer's point of view, Al Gore committed a mortal sin. He intentionally misrepresented the most likely outcome of the "substantional" set of facts he had to work from for the sole purpose of promoting a political agenda.By the way, Al's mischief can't hold a candle to the political tinkering the Bush adminstration has conducted in many areas of regulatory approval. But no one gave those idiots a Nobel.
By all accounts Al is a smart man with a wicked sense of humor. I have no doubts that he is a good family man. I hold no personal animosity for him.
This just makes his political shennanigans regarding GW all the more deserving of ridicule.
carrick | October 12, 2007, 12:41pm | #
What is his bodycount? Did you even ask?Dave W, you're better than that.
Dave Woycechowsky | October 12, 2007, 12:45pm | #
No, I think bodycounts should be public knowledge and should be discussed freely. Treating them as secret does not help the soldier or the civilian trying to understand the soldier.People used to talk about them when the wars were just.
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 12:46pm | #
carrick,I remember when the U.S. military did not make a count of the number of civilians killed in the war (do they count them now?) and it appeared to be less of an issue, these days though there seems to be a greater focus on civilian deaths.
joe | October 12, 2007, 12:46pm | #
Piss on you, carrick.The consequences speak for themselves, and the dead don't care about your noble intentions.
You want "beneath contempt?" How about putting your feelings and intentions before other people's lives? That's beneath contempt.
I'm sure your friend didn't mean to let al Qaeda carry out terror attacks all over Iraq. I'm sure he didn't mean to facilitate the ethnic cleansing of millions.
But I don't really care.
John | October 12, 2007, 12:47pm | #
I love it how Joe whines like a stuck pig about the evil right wing propaganda machine who questions anyone's patriotism who disagrees with the war and then gets on here and says that the US military is perpetrator of ethnic cleansing. You are beneath contempt Joe. You dish it out well but you can never take it.As far as Al Gore goes. There is no way under any normal standard he deserves this prize. At one level, I don't blame him and think what is he supposed to do turn it down? But then I think yeah he probably should. Look, if the Nobel committee called me up tomorrow and said "you remember those short stories you got published in that literary review in college? Well we have read them and have decided to give you the Nobel Prize for Literature for them", I really couldn't accept it in good faith. If I was honest and let my integrity outweigh my greed, I would have to turn them down. If Al Gore came out and said "I appreciate the effort and I hope this gets more people to be concerned with Global Warming, but I really didn't do enough to justify this prize, therefore I am turning it down", you would really have to respect him. As it is, Al Gore will be a typical leftist douchbag with delusions of grander and stand up and accept this award with a tear in his eye and really think that he is on the same moral plain as Albert Switzer or Anwar Sadat. For that reason if no other one, you really have to feel sorry for Al Gore, regardless of what your opinion on his movie is.
joe | October 12, 2007, 12:49pm | #
Ayn Randian,You said that Africa is short on resources No, I did not. I listed a shortage of resources as one of things that has caused problems in Africa - as it has, in many places, where millions of people now live.
Last chance - are you really going to say that there hasn't been tribalist violence in Darfur because the area lacks resources?
smartass sob | October 12, 2007, 12:51pm | #
Actually, that photo of Gore looks a little like a fat, older Leonard DiCaprio!bigbigslacker | October 12, 2007, 12:53pm | #
"He got the prize mostly for being a person of power and influence who avoided being co-opted by moneyed interests on global warming issues."Good one (I'm assuming this was sarcasm)
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 12:54pm | #
Can't we all get along? ;)Timon19 | October 12, 2007, 12:56pm | #
Syloson,Only Saudi is Wahhabist, and the hard-line Wahhabbis are not particularly thrilled that the government deals with the West in any sense.
The rest of the nations of the peninsula are decidedly non-Wahhabist and are varying degrees of liberal on trade (UAE probably being least Wahhabbist and most liberal on trade, what with Dubai being probably THE key transshipment point in the region).
joe | October 12, 2007, 12:57pm | #
Time has already proven Al Gore correct.We know the earth is getting warmer; that this is caused by human activity; that this is causing the loss of polar ice caps; that it is causing changes in habitat that result in species extinction; that the seas are rising; that people are being harmed by warming-related environmental changes; and that reducing our greenhouse-gas pollution is necessary to stop it.
These are not open questions anymore. The science has been proven, and the IPCC and Al Gore have done the work that allowed people throughout the world to know it.
joe | October 12, 2007, 12:58pm | #
VM,Achieving peace is more than getting an army in the field to cease fire. Far better is to keep that army from ever going to war in the first place.
Tailpipe solutions are inefficient and unreliable.
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 12:58pm | #
Timon19,As I understand there are actual fast food joints in Saudi Arabia as well as malls and the like. The point is that the peninsula as a whole has changed dramatically in a little over a half-century and trade is a major reason for that.
carrick | October 12, 2007, 1:00pm | #
I'm sure your friend didn't mean to let al Qaeda carry out terror attacks all over Iraq. I'm sure he didn't mean to facilitate the ethnic cleansing of millions.This is on par with "liberals support terrorists".
joe | October 12, 2007, 1:01pm | #
Piss on you, too, John, and your pathetic straw man.I never accused the US military of conducting ethnic cleansing, but of facilitating it. Look up "facilitate," you ignorant cow, and stop pretending your oh-so-noble intentions make the bodies stink any less.
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 1:02pm | #
Timon19,Narrow or not it is a very important point. I mean, we should have no expectation that Saudi Arabia will become Canada over night.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 12, 2007, 1:02pm | #
"He intentionally misrepresented the most likely outcome of the "substantional" set of facts he had to work from for the sole purpose of promoting a political agenda." carrick-the man is a politician, not an engineer. Scientists do the cautious jargon laden work with rightly qualified conclusions, but political leaders often use "exagerrated" rhetoric to move people to action. I'm just amazed, considering it was a politician, that the facts and science were "substantially correct."Myself, if the Prize was going to be given to a Global Warming related person, then the countless scientists )working independently and with no really good reason to come up with what they did in fact find) who found out warming was happening and humans were in part responsible deserve it more. But I guess they thought giving it to Gore, who was in the right here, would further the cause (which is a pretty good one I submit).
joe | October 12, 2007, 1:03pm | #
This is on par with "liberals support terrorists".Nothing liberals have done has actually caused more terrorism.
What the military has down (has been required to do by the administration) has caused more ethnic cleansing.
So, no, they not equivalent. One of them is true, and one of them is false.
Timon19 | October 12, 2007, 1:03pm | #
Syloson,You'll note that the greatest amount of change has happened in the societies that are more liberal on the peninsula, and they have dragged PARTS of Saudi along, kicking and screaming at times, since they trade amongst themselves quite heavily.
The areas where Saudi has modernized and westernized has been almost strictly where westerners occur in large numbers.
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 1:04pm | #
Timon19,BTW, according to wikipedia, Wahabism extends past Saudi Arabia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabi
Lurker Kurt | October 12, 2007, 1:05pm | #
You don't think those things can cause ecological collapse?The words 'ecological collapse' bring to mind images of total, apocalyptic desolation. Kind of like Mordor from the Lord of the Rings where 'not a single thing grew'.
The spread of formerly tropical diseases and the rising of the sea level by millimeters each year do not strike me as being able to cause 'ecological collapse'. Long term ecological and economic change yes, but not a collapse.
joe | October 12, 2007, 1:05pm | #
If Al Gore's contribution to human understanding of the nature and scope of the global warming problem was an irrelevant as the short stories John wrote in college, I doubt we'd see so many deniers spilling so much ink to denounce him.He can't be a non-entity and be the greatest threat to human civilization ever, at the same time.
I wonder if his two younger children, Sarah and Albert III (according to Wikipedia), are going to have any emotional problems when they grow up? Think how being them must suck: "Daddy says overpopulation is a huge threat to humanity. Daddy says therefore, nobody should have more than two children. We are Daddy's third and fourth children, respectively. I wonder if we, personally, are the reasons Daddy decided that having more than two children is bad? Even if not, how can we handle the knowledge that our very existence threatens the Earth?"
Episiarch | October 12, 2007, 1:06pm | #
These are not open questions anymore.It's pretty impressive that you can say this with a straight face, joe, when you consider how many supposedly rock-fucking-solid scientific theories have been shown to be wrong. Theories that had a lot more real science behind them than AGW. You know, like Newtonian physics and chump stuff like that.
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 1:06pm | #
Timon19,You'll note that the greatest amount of change has happened in the societies that are more liberal on the peninsula, and they have dragged PARTS of Saudi along, kicking and screaming at times, since they trade amongst themselves quite heavily.
Say that is all true. That sort of goes to my point, doesn't it?
John | October 12, 2007, 1:07pm | #
"I never accused the US military of conducting ethnic cleansing, but of facilitating it. "Yeah Joe and you tried to "facilitate" the continuation of Saddam's regime by objecting to the invasion. Same logic applies in both cases. In the case of Saddam you screamed like a stuck pig and demanded an apology for months. But, you don't seem to have a problem of using the same logic when you can slander the military. But you support the troops don't you Joe? Just like I support the anti-war effort.
John | October 12, 2007, 1:09pm | #
Episiarch,Up until about a month ago the theory that man made CFCs were the cause of dangerous ozone depletion was a hell of a lot more settled than man made global warming. Whoops. Don't ever be surprised at what Joe will say with a straight face.
carrick | October 12, 2007, 1:11pm | #
the man is a politician, not an engineer. Scientists do the cautious jargon laden work with rightly qualified conclusions, but political leaders often use "exagerrated" rhetoric to move people to action. I'm just amazed, considering it was a politician, that the facts and science were "substantially correct."The Nobel committee could have stopped at given the Nobel to the IPCC and I would not be complaining.
Al Gore was given an Oscar for a film that is essentially political propaganda.
The Nobel committee then validate this by letting him share the Nobel with the scientists that actually published a report that includes all the probabilities of the possible outcomes. The report may have debatable conclusions, but it was legitimate work.
Lurker Kurt | October 12, 2007, 1:11pm | #
You said that Africa is short on resources No, I did not. I listed a shortage of resources as one of things that has caused problems in Africa - as it has, in many places, where millions of people now live.Last chance - are you really going to say that there hasn't been tribalist violence in Darfur because the area lacks resources?
I would say that Africa has a dire shortage of intangible assests, namely rule of law.
joe | October 12, 2007, 1:11pm | #
MNG,1. The IPCC shared the prize..
2. It was not just the science that has caused such changes in awareness of the problem, but the routing of the denialist position in the marketplace of ideas, and Al Gore has contributed more to that rout in that arena than anyone else.
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 1:11pm | #
Episiarch,I'll be nitpicky here and state that as I recall Newtonian physics is still taught in physics courses. Of course it no longer is seen as explaining the whole picture.
Of course maybe thoreau can explain this better than I can. Was Newtonian physics shown to be wrong? Or merely incomplete?
Anyway, I'd say that AGW is real (I mean, just on its face it makes a certain degree of sense) however our understanding of the future significance of such is at best incomplete.
joe | October 12, 2007, 1:13pm | #
Lurker Kurt,The words 'ecological collapse' bring to mind images of total, apocalyptic desolation. Kind of like Mordor from the Lord of the Rings where 'not a single thing grew'.
You mean like deserts expanding into formerly-fertile areas, as has happened in Darfur?
Mr. Nice Guy | October 12, 2007, 1:13pm | #
John and EpisiarchI see your point about scientific theories being seen at one time as closed questions and then later being shown to be false. However, if you look at the scientific consensus at most given times it is more correct than, say, layperson or interest groups opinion. Now there is scientific consensus on a host of issues that I would imagine you would not defy based on the chance that this is the time they are wrong. Isn't the pragmatic thing to follow the consensus of trained experts on things like this?
Frank_A | October 12, 2007, 1:13pm | #
joe | October 12, 2007, 10:23am | #Ken,
Microloans overcome intractable poverty.
I'd really hate to quibble on something that I had believed to be a boon, but seems to create a debt trap similar to middle class Americans with their reliance on credit cards:
http://www.mises.org/story/2375
Granted, it's from the Mises Institute, but I would think even access to microloans would still not be enough since in many parts of the world the high level of corruption and stifling red tape/buisness regulations would prevent the building of buisness and instead facilitate only consumption...
John | October 12, 2007, 1:15pm | #
"Anyway, I'd say that AGW is real (I mean, just on its face it makes a certain degree of sense) however our understanding of the future significance of such is at best incomplete."That is not what Al Gore says. According to him we have a complete understanding of the process.
joe | October 12, 2007, 1:15pm | #
sea level by millimeters each year is deeply misleading. That refers to an average.Average sea level rises, like average air temperature rises, do not occur by evenly and gradually increasing everything from it's ground state by a set amount, but by increases the highest of the highs and the lowest of the lows. Devestating floods can be catastrophic.
joe | October 12, 2007, 1:17pm | #
Jennifer,"Daddy says overpopulation is a huge threat to humanity. Daddy says therefore, nobody should have more than two children.
Gore doesnt actually say any of those things. So, unless those two children grow up to be right-wing Kool Aid drinkers, you can stop worrying.
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 1:18pm | #
Full Disclosure: I used to be a AGW skeptic and probably held out longer on the subject than I should have.John,
Well, we differ in our opinion then I guess.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 12, 2007, 1:19pm | #
I think of the numerous scientific consensuses and wonder how can't give themselves pause when they casually accept the vast majority and find that the ones they reject have political implications they don't like. Wouldn't you think that your political views are clouding your judgment rather than that thousands of independent trained experts are conspiring to fool us into a Gaia worshipping socialist state?I think the whole animosity to GW in the libertarian community is some proof of my working hypo that vested interests that fund libertarian think tanks and magazines call the tune of libertarianism more than any philosophical coherence. I don't see any more reason that denying global warming is a "libertarian" thing to do than denying communism or drought or some other threat to human safety and comfort would be THE libertarian thing to do, and yet most libertarian institutions charged into that breach rather quickly...
joe - (armies comment) exactly! but the "fucking for virginity" crowd misses it.
joe | October 12, 2007, 1:19pm | #
Newtonian physics has not been shown to wrong, Episiarch. Please, lecture me a little more about science. Lol.John,
Identity politics whining is even less impressive when it comes from people who like to define themselves as tough guys.
John | October 12, 2007, 1:19pm | #
"I see your point about scientific theories being seen at one time as closed questions and then later being shown to be false. However, if you look at the scientific consensus at most given times it is more correct than, say, layperson or interest groups opinion. Now there is scientific consensus on a host of issues that I would imagine you would not defy based on the chance that this is the time they are wrong. Isn't the pragmatic thing to follow the consensus of trained experts on things like this?"When following the "consensus" costs trillions of dollars and destroy millions of people's way of life and offers a convenient excuse to enact every inane socialist program that we all thought had been discredited in the past 40 years, I might not be so gung ho to follow. The problem is that unlike some decisions based on science there are tremendous costs of being wrong in either direction. Further, consensus is not science. There are other theories, specifically variations in solar activity that explain global warming. Are they right? I don't know, but I don't like by trillions that they are. Further, while global warming on its face makes sense, what does make sense, when you consider the fact that we know the world was 4 degrees warmer as recently five thousand years ago, is the idea that the warming associated with it is necessarily going to be catastrophic or serious enough to justify the cost of preventing it.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 12, 2007, 1:20pm | #
wonder how people can't give themselves pause" of courseJohn | October 12, 2007, 1:22pm | #
"Identity politics whining is even less impressive when it comes from people who like to define themselves as tough guys."Why not to respond to the point Joe. If the military is facilitating ethnic clensing, then you were facilitating the continuation of Saddam Husain's regime by objecting to the invasion. There is some logic to both points. You of course love to dish it out but can't ever take it when applied to you.
TUFF GUY OF THE INTERNETS | October 12, 2007, 1:22pm | #
KARATE STANCE!!!!!!!!!joe | October 12, 2007, 1:26pm | #
When following the "consensus" costs trillions of dollars and destroy millions of people's way of life and offers a convenient excuse to enact every inane socialist program that we all thought had been discredited in the past 40 years, I might not be so gung ho to follow.In other words, you're letting your politics determine your opinion of science. You should really know that off.
If the military is facilitating ethnic clensing, then you were facilitating the continuation of Saddam Husain's regime by objecting to the invasion.
Since I supported policies intended to bring about the end of Hussein's regime - such as continuing the type of containment policy that eventually caused the Soviet Union to reform and collapse - I don't bear the slightest responsibility for anything Hussein might have done.
I didn't get my policy, so I don't have to answer for the consequences of anyone else's. You did get your policy, so the consequences rightly fall on your head.
This is a really obvious logical point. You need to stop deliberately blinding yourself to things because you're rather not know them.
Lurker Kurt | October 12, 2007, 1:29pm | #
Joe, I'm just guessing here, but did poor farming/grazing methods have any impact on Darfur?As to the 'several millimeters each year', I just took Bjorn Lomborg's estimate of a 13 inch sea level rise in the next century and divided by 100. Yes, this is an average. Ice caps melting means more water in the hydroshere which means more rainfall which can mean more flooding.
Perhaps we are talking past each other here. Since mankind is a tool using animal, we can create tools to adapt to climate change. Once again, it is the apocalyptic pronouncements of the global warming crowd that I take issue with.
joe | October 12, 2007, 1:31pm | #
Kurt,I don't know. There are generally a number of factors at play in desertification.
Since mankind is a tool using animal, we can create tools to adapt to climate change.
Yes we can. And as with any problem that threates to escalate, we most efficiently fix the problem early.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 12, 2007, 1:32pm | #
"while global warming on its face makes sense, what does make sense, when you consider the fact that we know the world was 4 degrees warmer as recently five thousand years ago, is the idea that the warming associated with it is necessarily going to be catastrophic or serious enough to justify the cost of preventing it."John-Don't you think the many, many experts on this subject who disagree with you know about that fact and have a darn good explanation for it that allows them to take the position that they do? Do you think they have all been brainwashed by Cobra?
Timon19 | October 12, 2007, 1:33pm | #
Syloson,Saudi is overwhelmingly Wahhabist. I blew it on Kuwait and Qatar, though those are listed in decreasing order of level of Wahhabist influence and (coincidentally?) increasing order of level of liberalization.
Episiarch | October 12, 2007, 1:35pm | #
Newtonian physics has not been shown to wrong, Episiarch. Please, lecture me a little more about science. Lol.joe, you are, as I understand, some sort of city planner? I think as a trained scientist I can lecture you a little. Newtonian physics are not correct; they are only valid at speeds far, far less than the speed of light.
Which means that they are not fully valid (but are close enough for use at the speeds we encounter). But they were considered absolutely 100% correct until Einstein.
You see my point, right? I don't know how much clearer I can make it. No issue is settled--history has proven that AGAIN and AGAIN. To assume that something as difficult as AGW is settled is the height of stupidity, arrogance, and group-think.
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 1:35pm | #
Timon19,FWIW, as I understand it more and more Saudis aren't particularly happy with Wahhabism.
Lamar | October 12, 2007, 1:41pm | #
"100% correct until Einstein."Isn't Relativity wrong when you get to subatomic particles or something?
Timon19 | October 12, 2007, 1:43pm | #
Newtonian mechanics is a bad example of "disproved" science.It's still used by nearly everyone doing work on things traveling at less than 90% of the speed of light or on particles or systems with any significant mass.
Newtonian mechanics is an excellent approximation for nearly all of the world to which we can relate.
It breaks down at the extremes, where very few people experience things or can comprehend them.
R C Dean | October 12, 2007, 1:44pm | #
Yet the middle east, particularly countries on the Arabian peninsula, are fully engaged in trade.First, I wasn't talking about the middle east in general or the Arab peninsula in particular, I was talking about Wahhabists and the society they would like to create, so this response is something of a non sequitur.
Taking Saudi Arabia as our current examplar of a Wahhabist state, I doubt they are really fully engaged in trade, because they impose severe restrictions on travel and ideas. Trade is not just, or even mostly, commodities like oil and Mercedes cars. It is primarily about the people and ideas, and those are not free to move around in Saudi Arabia.
Brainwashed Climatologist | October 12, 2007, 1:46pm | #
Wait a second, there were temperature variations before the 20th century?Goddammit, why didn't anyone mention this to me before?!?
OK, settle down. Just as long as I don't find out that the sun causes temperatures to increase, my career will survive.
Brainwashed Climatologist | October 12, 2007, 1:48pm | #
Episiarch,Newtonian physics are not correct; they are only valid at speeds far, far less than the speed of light.
So, in other words, yes, they are correct, in almost all circumstances that matter to us.
You see my point, right?
Yes, you have be reduced to arguing about fraction of a percent. I get your point just fine.
Episiarch | October 12, 2007, 1:48pm | #
Newtonian mechanics is a bad example of "disproved" science.I guess I do have to spell it out. Newtonian physics was, by all conception, correct--except it turns out that it's not. It is close enough at the speeds we encounter that it is totally useable, but hundreds of years after it was discovered, it was found to be fundamentally wrong.
I thought this was a good example of how, even with the best theories, assuming that they are now and forever correct and no discussion is tolerated...is bad practice.
Timon19 | October 12, 2007, 1:49pm | #
90% of the speed of light is still well below it in absolute terms, BTW.Syloson,
That is true. Many Saudis are not happy with it. The royal family grants it more latitude in proportion with the level of control the government needs to assert over the people. And yet the Saudi royal family desperately wants to modernize further.
It's a delicate balancing act that will spectacularly collapse one day. It's why most of the countries in the region have rejected following a similar path and have (largely) prospered for it.
Timon19 | October 12, 2007, 1:52pm | #
All I'm saying, Episiarch, is that you could have picked a better example.I'm with you on what you're TRYING to say.
I think the ozone thing is probably the best and most topical example, but I'm sure we can come up with something better (earth-centered vs. heliocentric immediate celestial neighborhood, as a quick example).
Brainwashed Climatologist | October 12, 2007, 1:53pm | #
except it turns out that it's not.No, it turns out to be completely true except in a tiny fraction of cases, and has proven to be extremely accurate at describing and predicting how the world we live in functions.
What your example does, Episiarch, is highlight exactly how far you are willing to stretch in order to find a counterexample, and how much you are willing to overemphasize it, if it appears to make your point.
R C Dean | October 12, 2007, 1:53pm | #
WAR IS PEACEFREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Ooh, let me play!
MAN CONTROLS THE CLIMATE.
Episiarch | October 12, 2007, 1:55pm | #
So, in other words, yes, they are correct, in almost all circumstances that matter to us.joe, we'll gloss over the fact that you didn't even know that Newtonian mechanics were flawed, but felt free to give me a smug "lol" and then be proved wrong.
No, they are not correct. They are a flawed approximation that was functional but not correct. However, I am not saying that AGW theories are slightly flawed but work for us enough.
I am saying that for you to say that discussion is 100% over is absurd on its face considering historical examples of theories being incorrect--and I gave you an example.
Don't try to redirect by getting into the nitty-gritty of the flawed nature of Newtonian mechanics. I want to hear you defend the idea that scientific theories can be considered undisputably settled. Like Stephen Hawking's theories, right?
joe | October 12, 2007, 1:55pm | #
MAN CONTROLS THE CLIMATE.Ooh, let me play!
"Influences" is "controls."
"Some" is "all" (or "none," depending on the point you're trying to make.
Here's one for Episiarch:
"True in virtually all cases, and in all cases that are applicable" is "Disproven."
joe | October 12, 2007, 1:59pm | #
No, Episiarch, I know that relativity theory and quantum theory exisit, and their relationship to Newtonian physics.But it's impressive to see someone who can dodge and pat himself on the back at the same time.
I think you picked a perfect example - one that acknowledges the accuracy of the existing science, but points out that it covers a fraction less than 100% of the subject.
carrick | October 12, 2007, 2:01pm | #
Newtonian physics is in fact not true. Period.BA Physics 1985
Episiarch | October 12, 2007, 2:02pm | #
"True in virtually all cases, and in all cases that are applicable" is "Disproven."You are either really not understanding what I am saying, are being willfully obtuse, or are just going "neener neener", and I don't know which it is. Try reading. Harder.
I read what you said: that discussion on this subject is absolutely closed. That's a pretty fucked up, Catholic-church-vs-Galileo type statement.
joe | October 12, 2007, 2:04pm | #
Newtonian physics is wrong?Forces don't produce counterforces?
Are you sure about that?
Where'd you get that degree?
Pro Libertate | October 12, 2007, 2:04pm | #
Warming trend? Yes. Anthropogenic factors? Most likely. What will happen? Not really sure.The above is the science. Everything else, including most of what Gore (and joe) is saying, is not. The likelihood of catastrophic and rapid changes seems minimal, and there's plenty of reason to believe that the only real option we have is to adapt to the changes if they continue to occur--not strive in futility to stop them. And, of course, we're far, far from certain about what percentage of the warming has anything to do with mankind's activities.
Episiarch | October 12, 2007, 2:04pm | #
But it's impressive to see someone who can dodge and pat himself on the back at the same time.That's rich.
joe | October 12, 2007, 2:07pm | #
Quantum physics and Relativity theory added to Newtonian physics. They didn't disprove it.Newtonian physics are so "disproven" that they are used every single day by millions of engineers, scientists, and researchers, who are able to effectively build, study, and predict based on their principles.
But since we've learned that electrons act differently, that means Newton was wrong.
No, sorry, it doesn't.
carrick | October 12, 2007, 2:09pm | #
Where'd you get that degree?University of Northern Iowa, Graduated with Honors, Double major in Physics and Computer Science.
First year physics -- they teach all that practical Newtonian physics stuff.
Day one second year physics -- all that Newtonian stuff was a lie.
Modern physics says that on a large scale all theories must produce the same result as observable Newtonian physics. That is not the same as saying Newtonian physcis is true.
You ingnorant cunt ;-)
carrick | October 12, 2007, 2:10pm | #
Quantum physics and Relativity theory added to Newtonian physics.They replaced it.
They didn't disprove it.
Yes they did.
Pro Libertate | October 12, 2007, 2:12pm | #
Hey, now! That's ignorant slut. Dan Aykroyd would be most displeased.Episiarch | October 12, 2007, 2:12pm | #
joe, you really shouldn't get into a physics discussion that you don't even understand. Newtonian physics is an inaccurate subset of laws that do not take relativity into account.But you are purposefully zeroing in on semantics about whether Newton was wrong because you are refusing to address my question: how can you say that discussion on any scientific issue is absolutely closed? Especially considering all the theories that were thought of that way and then proven wrong?
Why won't you address this?
carrick | October 12, 2007, 2:14pm | #
Hey, now! That's ignorant slut. Dan Aykroyd would be most displeased.Creeping senility. My bad.
Syloson of Samos | October 12, 2007, 2:15pm | #
R.C. Dean,The point of course is that the Wahabists have been steadily losing even in Saudi Arabia. So yeah, I'll agree that things are by no means perfect there, but the significant changes seen in the region show the power of the trade that does exist and why we should encouraging that.
carrick | October 12, 2007, 2:15pm | #
all that Newtonian stuff was a lie.By the way, that's a quote from a guy with PhD.
Pro Libertate | October 12, 2007, 2:16pm | #
I mean, you can't say "cunt" on TV. Shoot, I'm going to have to say twenty Hail Marys for just typing the word.VM | October 12, 2007, 2:18pm | #
Epi, joe, Doktor T:While everybody knows the nature of evil of fiziks types, but hier's a question for both:
what the hell are you guys talking about?
Didn't S of S sum it up already? Don't you learn N.P. in undergrad, early grad to get the foundation (like in Econ you do Keynesianism, Monetarism, Synthesis)?
Does it matter how F = ma? whe