It seems to me Swanson and a lot of other people are implying that since Al Gore was so far ahead of the curve on the environment as a whole that everything that didn’t or doesn’t get done is his fault.

At one time I thought Libertarianism seemed worth looking in to. Now, after reading a lot of Libertarians, to an outsider like me Libertarians look like ruthless capitalist ideologues of the Republican with a few (but not enough) redeeming qualities.

It has also become apparent to me practicality is not one of their strong points and “Politics as the art of the possible” doesn’t even make the list.

My sources? Libertarian’s own words.

Ever So Sincerely,
Michael D. Adams

Thank you, Tim Swanson, for coming out against this year’s choice for the Nobel Peace prize (I mean war criminal Kissinger got it in the past–shudder}. I also am so appreciative of all the scientific information shared by all the commentators.

Even the Grameen Bank guy last year. Sheesh. Introduce debt slavery, usury and repo men to the landless of the 3rd world and get a million dollar prize.

What you are all saying is all very interesting, if a bit old news, but unfortunately I still didn’t see anything like a coherent theory that can actually explain the numbers we are seeing in recent years.

Yes of course there have been tremendous changes in the planet’s climate and average temperatures that were not caused by human action, but that does not mean human action can not cause it now, only that it is possible. However to my knowledge there is no “solid” theory which can explain the recent data without including human intervention, and apparently no one here was able to point us to one. Said data, btw, has been sourced from many points, not just ground stations, for quite some time now. No one who withholds data will have their conclusions treated seriously for long.

No one I know of (certainly no respected climatologist) claims that all of the current average temperature increases are due to human action, but rather that human action is enhancing and/or accelerating a trend that does not bode well for us. If the earth continues to warm at even close to the rate projected by most researchers, we will be in considerable trouble regardless of the source of the change. If theories that are able to match the data all include human action, then perhaps we should look at changing that action appropriately.

As to the “experts” who claimed we were potentially entering a new ice age 30 years ago, I remember all too well. What occurred imho was one of those unfortunate situations where the media grabs onto a couple of studies done by a few people and blows it quite out of proportion, citing as “proof” some others saying in effect “Well, they could be right, might explain a few things, I’ll have to look into it.” You are correct, some previously well respected folks got fooled by a limited data set, and at that time no one had the computing power available to easily expand said data pool, so it took a while for the scientific community to locate the problems – in the mean time headlines were in papers everywhere telling folks they were about to freeze to death. Really unfortunate, actually really stupid.
However that situation is not analogous to the current global warming research. Both the ability to handle much larger data sets and atmospheric modeling have improved drastically in the meantime, and far more researchers and institutions are directly tackling the problems. And in every case they are coming to the same conclusions, that human action has had, and is having, a significant effect on climate change to our detriment.

Regarding the use of non-fossil fuel for developing countries, actually there are many examples of the use of solar, wind and water power in the developing world, especially the poorest areas. It is far cheaper to set up a solar panel to run a well pump for 3 or more years than to carry in fossil fuel over that time for the same purpose. Fossil fuels often appear cheaper initially, but if you look at lifetime costs things change. It can be the most economically efficient for developing economies that are rich in fossil fuel resources to sell it to others whose economies have become dependent on it, and use the proceeds to purchase other more physically efficient energy sources. I don’t care for subsidies either, but if anyone believes that oil is not effectively subsidized perhaps they need to talk to some of our libertarian economist friends here.

Despite all of the above, I still think it’s a shame Mr. Nobel’s gift has to be squandered on the likes of Al Gore.

The Nobel meant to poopoo Bush which the Europeans consider the Iraqi butcher. But, Gore’s presidency would have been as much about Lieberman as Bush presidency is about Cheney!

Gore picked the first openly Zionist warmonger as his VICE and Lieberman’s policies now talk clearly about how Gore’s presidency would have been: MOST POSSIBLY Lieberman would have gone right to Iran after Iraq and then to other wars in which he would sacrifice American blood for Israel’s sake.

The facts as I understand them: Carbon dioxide is responsible for a tiny fraction of the so-called greenhouse effect. (Water vapor, which varies wildly, is responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse warming.) And humans are responsible for a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Geologic activity and the rest of life on earth is responsible for the vast majority of carbon dioxide produced.) The only way scientists can blame global warming on humans is to set up very contrived-sounding feedback mechanisms. Oh, and yes, carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere do track global temperatures, but Al Gore has cause-and-effect backwards. Any high-school science student knows that the colder water is, the more carbon dioxide it will hold, and the warmer the water is, the less it will hold. And the earth happens to be covered with a lot of water.

Thirty years ago the consensus was that the earth was getting cooler, and there were plenty of “experts” ready to blame that on humans. They were wrong then, they’re wrong now.

Humans have a very strong evolutionary instinct for establishing tribal concensus. Politicians are parasites that feed off society by the manipulation of this evolutionary instinct. The issue of anthropogenic global warming is an attempt to manipulate tribal concensus on a global scale. It doesn’t and never did have anything to do with real peace in the real world.

a. It is their forefather’s land to begin with
b. They all speak a pigin version of a European Language
c. They work really hard for less money
d. They like their jobs
e. If we keep them here we avert war with Mexico

I voted for Bill and Al twice so I have nothing against Al but I think that awarding him a peace price this year seems a little too politically motivated for my taste. Why do some Scientist and Economist have to wait 15 years or more on some occasions to get a nobel for really brilliant proven work?

As for the Presidential elections, I have not found a single contender that I feel confident is capable of running this very big and complicated country – there is no one out there with the Charisma, steadfastness or brains. Very sad.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A3160_0_2_0_C/