Award puts focus on the next crisis: a flat earth.

PALO ALTO, Calif. – For years, former Vice President Al Gore and a host of astronomers were belittled and, worst of all, ignored for their message about how dire is the flattening of the globe. On Friday, they were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their warnings about what Gore calls “a planetary emergency.”

Gore shared the prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Astronomy, a United Nations network of scientists. This scientific panel has explained the dry details of global flattening in thousands of pages of footnoted reports every six years or so since 1995. Gore maintains that the flattening of the globe is due mainly to man-caused changes to the roundness of the earth, such as the use of giant earth-moving equipment and oil-drilling rigs that cause the collapse of the surface when oil is removed from deep within the crust.

Gore, who barely missed winning the U.S. presidency in 2000, translated the numbers and jargon-laden reports into something people could understand. He made a slide show and went Hollywood.

His documentary A Flat Truth won two Academy Awards and has been credited with changing the debate in America about global flattening.

For Gore, it was all about the message.

“This is a chance to elevate global consciousness about the challenges that we face now,” he said Friday at the offices of the Alliance For Round-Earth Protection, a nonprofit he founded. “The alarm bells are going off in the scientific community.”

Despite a live global stage, Gore did not take questions from reporters, avoiding the issue of a potential 2012 presidential run. His aides repeatedly say he won’t enter the race. Gore donated his share of the $1.5 million prize to the nonprofit.

“For my part, I will be doing everything I can to try to understand how to best use the honor and the recognition from this award as a way of speeding up the change in awareness and the change in urgency,” Gore said in brief remarks. “It is a planetary emergency and we have to act quickly.”

In announcing the award earlier in the day in Oslo, Norway, Nobel committee chairman Ole Danbolt Mjoes said the prize was not a slap at the Bush administration’s current policies. Instead, he said it was about encouraging all countries “to think again and to say what can they do to conquer global flattening.”

Gore is the first former vice president to win the Peace Prize since 1906 when Theodore Roosevelt, who by that time had become president, was awarded. Sitting Vice President Charles Gates Dawes won the prize in 1925. Former Presidents Jimmy Carter won it in 2002 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919.

Gore, who learned of his award from watching the live TV announcement, hearing his name amid the Norwegian, was not celebratory Friday. His tone was somber. He spoke beside his wife, Tipper, and four Stanford University planetary scientists who were co-authors of the international planet report. Outside the building, schoolchildren held a sign saying, “Thank you Al.”

For years, there was little thanks.

From the late 1990s with his slide show, Gore championed the issue of global flattening. He had monthly science seminars on it while vice president and helped negotiate a 2000 Kyoto Protocol revision that called for cuts in earth-moving equipment and oil-drilling rigs by advanced nations.

“When he first started really working on the global change issue, I remember he was ridiculed in the press and certainly by political opponents as some kind of kook out there in La-La Land,” said federal astronomer Tom Peterson, an IPCC co-author. “It’s delightful that he’s sharing this and he deserves it well. And it’s nice to have his work being vindicated.”

Since his loss to George W. Bush in 2000, Gore put aside political aspirations and became a global flattening evangelical. He traveled to more than 50 countries. He presented his slide show on global flattening more than 1,000 times.

He turned that slide show into the documentary A Flat Truth.

The film won praise but also generated controversy. On Wednesday, a British judge ruled in a lawsuit that it was OK to show the movie to students in school. High Court Judge Michael Burton said it was “substantially founded upon scientific research and fact” but presented in a “context of alarmism and exaggeration.” He said teachers must be given a written document explaining that.

More than 20 top planetary scientists told The Associated Press last year that the film was generally accurate in its presentation of the science, although some were bothered by what they thought were a couple of exaggerations.

Gore’s movie was deeply personal. It was about him after losing the global warming debate and about his travels, and he talked about the changing globe in a personal way.

“He has honed that message in a way that many scientists are jealous of,” said University of Michigan Dean Rosina Bierbaum. She was a top White House science aide to Gore and President Clinton. “He is a master communicator.”

Planetary scientists said their work was cautious and rock-solid, confirmed with constant peer review, but it didn’t grab people’s attention.

“We need an advocate such as Al Gore to help present the work of scientists across the world,” said Bob Watson, former chairman of the IPCC and a top federal globe science adviser to the Clinton-Gore Administration.

Watson and Bierbaum, who regularly briefed Gore about global flattening, described him as voracious, wanting to understand every detail about the science. Bierbaum recalled one Air Force Two journey with Gore and the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“Gore was such a consummate scientist that he would keep asking and asking and asking deeper and deeper questions until at one point Jim Baker of NOAA and I ran back to our seats to go back through textbooks to get the answers,” Bierbaum said. “It was both exhilarating and exhausting to be part of his science team.”

Scientists and Nobel committee members said it was not a stretch to award the Peace Prize to Gore and the scientists. Studies by national security experts say a flatter world with changes in water and food supply can lead to wars and terrorism.

“We’re already seeing the first global flattening wars, in the Sahel belt of Africa,” said Jan Egeland, a Norwegian peace mediator.

The man who beat Gore in 2000, President Bush, had no plans to call Gore to congratulate him. But spokesman Tony Fratto called it “an important recognition” for both Gore and the scientific panel.

Some in the shrinking community of global flattening skeptics and those downplaying the issue, were dubious, however.

“I think it cheapens the Nobel Prize,” said William O’Keefe, chief executive officer of the conservative science-oriented think tank the Marshall Institute. O’Keefe, a former oil industry executive and current consultant to fossil fuel firms, called Gore’s work “rife with errors.”

As he was leaving the alliance’s office, Gore was asked whether the Nobel would quiet global flattening naysayers. He said the award would help the cause of fighting global flattening overall: “I hope we have a chance to really kick into high gear.”

Note: The above was a parody of “Gore: Award Puts Focus on Global Warming”; hat tip to The Huffington Post for inspiration.

You’ll have to point out exactly where I made a personal attack against you. Specifically. Did I call you stupid? Did I call into question your character? Did I accuse you of not being humble? What attack did I make?

And, you’ll have to quote me where I called Travis a jerk.

When Travis wrote, “Or, I suppose it’s theoretically possible that your definition of fairness is kind of a straw man that nobody really endorses except in the wilder-eyed exaggerations of political conservatives,” would you call that sarcastic as well? I note that you made no complaint about him.

And when Phil complained about Travis “…and since after 70+ posts I find myself wasting my time by providing evidence that is never addressed, and since I have no real interest in trading opinions with other people, I’m going to cut my losses on any further responses and let those who want to simply tell us what they feel go ahead and express themselves. There’s no way to debate an opinion,” I did not find you complaining about Phil’s attitude toward Travis.

Lastly, when I said, “Yonkel’s citations are devoid of context are (sic) were employed not for personal edification, but to accuse others,” were exactly was I in error, aside from my typo?

I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings. I’ll try to take that into account in my future posts.

You’ve exhausted me.

Have a good holiday.

If you are going to to attack me at least do it in the first person.

“Yonkel’s citations are devoid of context are (sic) were employed not for personal edification, but to accuse others.”

This is the type of personal attacks that you were leveling at Travis that led me to make the first mention of humility.

I looked back on the earlier part of the discussion which was largely Phil and Travis having a heated but friendly discussion with you interjecting personal attacks at Travis mostly in the third person as asides to Phil.

It would go like Phil made point A and Travis made point B and then you would interject to Phil that isn’t Travis a jerk like all those of his kind. You do the same to me.

I am sure Phil didn’t care that Travis didn’t call him Doctor. This isn’t a professional consultation. But if you are so intent on ettiquette and being respectful, you can call me Dr. though I really just prefer that you address me directly rather than making sarcastic comments about me to the peanut gallery.

Since this has become a GW thread, which in itself proves the inability to have a debate on Liberal Revealed Truth, you may’ve seen that the AP story:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081214/D952LKP00.html

which somehow ignores a decade of lower temps from the peak in the late 90s & the fact that everyone north of 36º30′ have been freezing his tonsils off recently & declares that the GW debate is over, GW is “accelerating” & THAT IT’S TIME TO ACT NOW!!!! Oh & BTW, The latest yearly decline in temp is due to the wayward wind, “Experts say it’s thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming”.

Global Cooling proves Global Warming! I get it.

Interestingly, I just read a piece referring to Baseball’s post-1994 scoring/home run explosion which the author shows peaked in 1999-2000. Think I’ll suggest to this guy that he’s wrong & that it’s really accelerating since last year’s totals were still over 1993′s. And far above the pre-1920 “deadball” era. AP logic.

Or maybe you’ve said it all already & The One has been elected to save the planet.

You are a person who does not flippantly toss off inanities. You obviously think through things, and I respect that very much. A good person to have on one’s side.

Maybe Yonkel isn’t a leftist, but I have a lot of trouble telling any difference between a moderate and a leftists on a practical level. The real world application of moderate politics manifests as leftism more often than not.

As far a being a Bible literalist, I wouldn’t characterize myself that way (at least in terms of the way that phaseology is perjoratively used against people of faith). I believe in God, I believe He has the ability to communicate with His creation, otherwise he wouldn’t be God. I believe He did so in the Bible. We find there the Word of God, not precisely given human agency, but substantially.

People like Yonkel tend to toss out Scripture to impugn others, not because they believe it themselves. Therefore, the Bible is only useful as it applies to others and can be used as a bludgeon. Or, as in the case of the Newsweek article, where it can be used to bolster an existing “progressive” position like gay marriage.

Yonkel’s citations are devoid of context are were employed not for personal edification, but to accuse others.

Seriously, he’s one of the few people on the other side I’ve been able to have an intelligent conversation with. I wouldn’t want to put him in the same category as the Looney Libs with fake degrees who drop in every once and a while.

I think maybe you and yonkel just got off on the wrong foot about quoting scripture. I count you as one of my strong friends and debating partners on many issues, but as you know I’m not particularly religious from a scriptural POV. I do respect people who hold more literal beliefs in the Bible than I do, but my starting point for analysis has always been a different foundation.

Take care, Phil

I sure do love how the “judge not lest ye be judged” crowd loves to judge people. I must say, howerver, that it is somewhat refreshing to have a couple of other Scriptures quoted besides that one. I was beginning to think that leftists had only one Scripture memorized.

*** The problem is, if “everyone” buys into the premise that man made global warming is (a) real, and (b) a problem, then the only “solutions” that will be accepted by conventional wisdom are man-made fixes. Assume for the moment that despite the snow in Las Vegas yesterday, and the last 40 years of stable or increasing world temperatures, that GW is somehow still provably “real”. This still begs the question, is man (vs. sunspots, vs. natural climatic changes) responsible?

The challenge isn’t to come up with an alternative fix to a flawed premise that presumes a man-made, therefore man-fixable problem. It’s to challenge the McCarthy-like pogrom against anyone who dares to question whether the premise is indeed accurate or flawed. Those opposed to the present Man-made GW dogma are fighting the battle to get a real, honest evaluation of the present situation before acting. It’s ready-aim-fire, not ready-fire-aim.

>The International National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that “An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system… There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

*** Yonkel, come on. We’ve had this conversation before.

1. As I’ve frequently pointed out, one does not have to be a “scientist” (either a person with a science PhD, or a PhD in a relevant field; i.e. botanists commenting on physics) to have voting membership in many of the organizations that proclaim this consensus. You need to look at the difference between scientific studies, and vested interests. If science determines that global warming is natural and not man-made, then there is no research money to “fix” the problem. I lived in this world for many years, and saw how government funds were allocated. [By the way, you cite the ACS as a source for determining that there is man-made global warming. Have a look at their website. Anyone can become a member, not just Ph.D’s. Type in “Global Warming” in their search engine and look at some of the links that follow. Among the “solutions” is to carpool, recycle, turn down your lights, take public transportation,and switch from red meat to chicken (no other agenda here). Oh, and to give more government funding to “solving” the problem.]

2. Regarding a 50 year “trend”: I’ve already pointed out that the present “heating” trend began in the late 1800s, when things were colder than normal (thus everything that follows is warmer). Even with that, world temperatures stabilized in the latter half of the 20th century, and have actually fallen in the last 10 years. It matters where you start to draw your conclusions, and 50 years (even 250 years) isn’t enough time to determine a trend. Only man’s hubris would make him think differently.
If you think otherwise, please tell me what the normal temperature of the earth should be, and tell me the extent to which non-human actions warm or cool the earth, and tell me this trend over a geologically relevant period (which is NOT 100 or even 500 years — there was a little ice age in the 1500s), and then we can talk about the role man may play.

3. “Consensus” is not “fact”. It’s consensus. Climatology is not medicine. You can test the effects of drugs on people, and understand how the human body functions with a relative degree of certainty. You know that giving X treatment will hurt or harm a person, and that it should take Y hours or days for the effects to be felt (immediate if it’s a high dose of arsenic, perhaps months of it’s a few milligrams of Proscar). Now tell me what the weather will be in Chicago in 6 month. Not just an estimate (“cold”), but temperature, wind conditions, condensation levels, etc. And then do it for the year 2051.
You have fallen into the false analogy that since medicine and climatology both involve “science”, they are fundamentally the same. Climatology depends on computer models filled with assumptions. Medicine does not. Change the models’ assumptions and you change the prediction. But giving anyone 1000 mg of arsenic will always have the same effect, regardless of whether it’s liquid, solid, mixed with food, given intravenously, etc.

4. You cite the American Chemical Society consensus that “There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities.” I just cited you 50+ prominent scientists — with no ulterior government-funding agenda — who dispute this. I’ll listen to people who have no social agenda to press, or who have no government money at stake, before I’ll take the word of people with a vested interest in one “solution” over another (or insisting that a man-made problem exists in the first place).

>I see many actions that we can do that would reduce carbon emmisions, that have enough other added benefits …
*** I prefer my solutions to a problem to be real before society is required to enact them. If GW advocates want to talk about the salutary benefits of reducing carbon emissions, let them argue this point. But it’s a dishonest way to act when the activists merge this with the fiction of man-made global warming.

Good intentions are not enough to justify deliberate dishonesty on the part of man-made GW advocates, who claim that consensus = proven fact, and who advocate self-serving, agenda-ridden solutions to “problems” that they claim exist. The last 40 years of data is already showing the lie about man screwing up the climate, which is why we’ve gone from global cooling in the 70s, to global warming in the 90s, to the ubiquitous “climate change” in the 21st century. Hot cold wet dry it’s all due predominately to man.

Otherwise intelligent people wouldn’t accept this claptrap logic for a minute, if they didn’t fear being labeled politically correct by asking basic, pertinent questions like “how do you know this?” But I, for won, am unwilling to surrender my common sense to the herd mentality and accept as fact something that is just a theory — and a theory that is nothing more than a consensus that is disputed by others NOT seeking government funding or wanting to be agents of social change (mass transit, less red meat, recycling, etc.).

> … that even if global warming due to humankind proved to be wrong, we would still benefit from implementing those actions.

*** If the day ever comes when Al Gore has to admit that the evidence does not support his man-made global warming hysteria, he’ll look in the camera and say sincerely “Perhaps I was wrong, but I did everything with the best of intentions. And besides, $25 a gallon hysteria-induced gasoline was good for the environment.”
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t. But if the issue cannot be argued honestly, it has no reason being treated credibly.

If limiting unnecessary pollution is a good thing, and it certainly is, it should be argued on its own merits, not used as an emotional sop to pursue a global climate change agenda.

>I really don’t care who wins the debate.

*** Neither do I — when it’s an academic dispute (was Jefferson better than Adams, are the Cowboys better than the Giants?). But when it involves making public policy, I do care which side of the issue prevails.

>I do believe that there is a common denominator of reason that runs through Americans of divergent viewpoint, which when reached to can bring real positive benefits to our country and the generations to come.

*** This is only possible when both sides are willing to examine the assumptions upon which “facts” are produces. To date, the man-made global warming crowd will not allow this discussion (ergo, it’s all about consensus — their consensus!). Once consensus has been invoked, the discussion is supposed to end.

This is crap, and I refuse to buy into it to be thought of kindly by enviro-Nazis.