Define Cynical Fan Forums

F'real.

If anyone needs me, I'll be on that cloud over there *points to #9*

WHAT?!?!?!

Oh, please.

This is absurd!

I'll be over banging my head on the wall...

So? He has devoted his screentime to making people aware. And he made a movie. With a futurama clip in it.

Hmm..

As important as climate change and ways to possibly counteract said change is, I'm not completely sure what it has to do with peace.

Republicans are at odds with pretty much every widely respected group other than their party these days. Mainstream scientists, the UN, PBS, the Academy of Motion Pictures, the Nobel peeps... Their only consolation is that they still rule more than half the Federal Government.

Somebody break out the violins.

Republicans are at odds with pretty much every widely respected group other than their party these days. Mainstream scientists, the UN, PBS, the Academy of Motion Pictures, the Nobel peeps... Their only consolation is that they still rule more than half the Federal Government.

Yes they are. What does that have to do with anything?

The reason for my reaction is thus:

1. Gore's accomplishments are pretty minor. If championing a useful cause and raising public awareness is all it takes to win the Prize, it becomes a meaningless prize based on the political wind of the moment.
2. Global warming is the stupidest politico-scientific bandwagon in the history of the world. Even if we somehow miraculously eliminated half our CO2 emissions, the effect on the earth's natural cooling/warming cycles would be minimal.

I just don't have much respect for an award given to someone just because he's a visible figure in a current cause celebre. If he'd really done something worth earning a Nobel (even if I thought said cause futile and misguided), then it wouldn't bother me at all.

My view is this: theres precious little other things the award could have been awarded for. Peace is in short supply. If you want war, check aisle 6. We just got a new shipment in.

2. Global warming is the stupidest politico-scientific bandwagon in the history of the world. Even if we somehow miraculously eliminated half our CO2 emissions, the effect on the earth's natural cooling/warming cycles* would be minimal**

*Unnatural warming/cooling

**Immediate effects.

I agree to some extent that Gore doesn't deserve a Nobel prize for what he's done, as there are countless others who've worked hard, but just not as publicly, to get their message out there.
However, I definitely do not feel that global warming is some "bandwagon". I mean, in USan lands, it seems taboo to not be totally partisan, and whatever party x says is what all it's constituents convince themselves is true. Here, all the parties are trying to change things for the better, in different ways of course, but they all admit there's a problem.

I can see the effects of global warming in the recent local weather patterns myself, as can practically every scientist ever (apart from a few, well-funded former tobacco lobbyist scientists, fancy meeting them here...), and I think that we should strive to make a difference, and not wait to find out if the scientists were right. Pollution isn't much good in any form anyway.

I mean, it's obvious global warming is being politicked by many more left leaning parties and governments, but I think there's infinitely more value in combating climate change than hunting for terrorist witches, the conservative cause celebre.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 633838.ece

US Judge - The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 633838.ece

Judge =/= Scientist ?

Gore is a politician, not a scientist. It's not an issue of who has the best judgement--Gore's claims are obviously out of line with respective scientific evidence. He exaggerated, just like Bush did over Iraq's WMDs. Only no one's going to be giving Bush the Nobel War Prize for it.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 633838.ece

Judge =/= Scientist ?

Gore is a politician, not a scientist. It's not an issue of who has the best judgement--Gore's claims are obviously out of line with respective scientific evidence. He exaggerated, just like Bush did over Iraq's WMDs. Only no one's going to be giving Bush the Nobel War Prize for it.

Edited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergover ... ate_Change

I'll be over banging my head on the wall...

Dude! Just because you dislike Al Gore, that's no reason to injure an innocent wall. If you insist, though, please at least injure a guilty wall.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 633838.ece

US Judge - The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Edit it some more.

If you'd read the article, you would see that it's like this:

British Court & the IPCC vs. Al Gore

He exaggerated the IPCC's figures. It's obvious to anyone who bothers to compare them, like the British judge did.

But really, let's not worry about it. I certainly don't want to argue with you.