So, exactly what...

[Yonivore]

It may have been hyped the media, but it was not accepted among the scientific community in the way global warming has been. It sounds to me like your major beef is with the amount of media/political attention given to global warming.

Point me to one scientist, in the discipline of climatology, that has published a paper saying anthropogenic global warming is an irrefutable fact and, in which, he lays out the scientific evidence.

Just one. And, that bogus UN ICC whatevertheyareandtheirscientificconcensus doesn't count.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I doubt you'll find any scientist claiming that global warming is an irrefutable fact.

[Yonivore]

I doubt you'll find any scientist claiming that global warming is an irrefutable fact.

Why not? Algore is trying to get the world to walk of the economic abyss and enact controls that will strangle the most prosperous economies on the planet while doing nothing for the poorest nations -- and, requiring nothing of the worst offenders (China).

If it's not an irrefutable fact, you're placing a whole lot of eggs in one basket.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Why not? Algore is trying to get the world to walk of the economic abyss and enact controls that will strangle the most prosperous economies on the planet while doing nothing for the poorest nations -- and, requiring nothing of the worst offenders (China).

You have an unhealthy obsession with al gore.

If it's not an irrefutable fact, you're placing a whole lot of eggs in one basket.

Scientists don't speak of terms of irrefutable because that is an impossible standard to attain.

[Nbadan]

Why not? Algore is trying to get the world to walk of the economic abyss and enact controls that will strangle the most prosperous economies on the planet while doing nothing for the poorest nations -- and, requiring nothing of the worst offenders (China).

China?!?

China uses 1/8th the annual rate of fossil fuels that the U.S. uses...

[Viva Las Espuelas]

China?!?

China uses 1/8th the annual rate of fossil fuels that the U.S. uses...

what?! that can't be true. how can that be if china's population outnumbers the US?

[Yonivore]

Here's a climatologists that say global warming is a bunch of bull .

An Inconvenient Expert

And an independent scientist, specializing in environmental sciences:

The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change

Oops, there goes the concensus:

Study: No Scientific Consensus on Global Warming Claims

It ain't warming in Antartica:

No Global Warming in Antarctica

Wow! Hundreds of scientists have published papers refuting man-made global warming:

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

The "father of climatology" calls global warming "hooey:"

University of Wisconsin professor emeritus calls global warming theory 'hooey'

And, finally, a few experts address Algore's theory...

A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth"

Find me one that says it is a scientific fact. Just one.

I could have sworn that Algore said the science was settled on this matter.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I find it odd that you're asking me to convince you of something that you call b/s. That's a fool's errand.

[Yonivore]

You have an unhealthy obsession with al gore.

He's championing a myth that has dire implications for our nation's future economic health.

Scientists don't speak of terms of irrefutable because that is an impossible standard to attain.

Fine then. Find me one that believes -- and has published a paper stating -- anthropogenic global warming is real. Just one.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

China?!?

China uses 1/8th the annual rate of fossil fuels that the U.S. uses...

1/8 my ass, and this was 2004. global warming is clouding your glasses.

[Yonivore]

China?!?

China uses 1/8th the annual rate of fossil fuels that the U.S. uses...

China is building a coal-burning power plant a day. Why exempt them from Kyoto?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Fine then. Find me one that believes -- and has published a paper stating -- anthropogenic global warming is real. Just one.

why does it have to be a climatologist?

[Yonivore]

why does it have to be a climatologist?

Because, surely, if anthropogenic global climate change is occurring, you can find a climatologist that is willing to do ent his scientific hypothesis supported by data.

Are you saying there are no climatologists that are willing to state anthropogenic global climate change is happening? Because, that's what I'm saying.

In fact, there are several climatologists that are saying it's a bunch of bunk.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

China?!?

China uses 1/8th the annual rate of fossil fuels that the U.S. uses...

this is practically sig worthy.

[Nbadan]

Perhaps the real problem is your source...

Most surprising is the dramatic surge in energy use in many industrial countries. Compared with just 10 years ago, for example, Americans are driving larger and less efficient cars and buying bigger homes and more appliances. As a result, U.S. oil use has increased over the decade by nearly 2.7 million barrels a day—more oil than is used daily in total in India and Pakistan, which together contain more than four times as many people as the United States does. In total, the average American consumes five times more energy than the average global citizen, 10 times more than the average Chinese, and nearly 20 times more than the average Indian.

World Watch

[Yonivore]

Okay, it doesn't have to be a climatologist. You too can prove anthropogenic global climate change is occurring in a convincing and definitive manner.

Just win this:

The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

And, not only will you win the argument but, you'll be $125,000.00 richer. That'll buy a few carbon offsets.

[Nbadan]

Selected Nations Oil Efficiency (barrel/person/year)

DRC 0.13
Ethiopia 0.37
Bangladesh 0.57
Myanmar 0.73
Pakistan 1.95
Nigeria 2.17
India 2.18
Vietnam 2.70
Philippines 3.77
Indonesia 4.63
China 4.96
Egypt 7.48
Turkey 9.85
Brazil 11.67
Poland 11.67
World 12.55
Thailand 13.86
Russia 17.66
Mexico 18.07
Iran 21.56
European Union 29.70
United Kingdom 30.18
Germany 32.31
France 32.43
Italy 32.43
Austria 34.01
Spain 35.18
Switzerland 34.64
Sweden 34.68
Taiwan 41.68
Japan 42.01
Australia 42.22
South Korea 43.84
Norway 52.06
Belgium 61.52
United States 68.81
Canada 69.85
Saudi Arabia 75.08
Singapore 178.45

Wikipedia

Top petroleum-consuming countries
# Consuming Nation (bbl/day) (m³/day)

1 United States 20,030,000 3,184,516
2 China 6,391,000 1,016,088
3 Japan 5,578,000 886,831
4 Russia 2,800,000 445,164
5 Germany 2,677,000 425,609
6 India 2,320,000 368,851
7 Canada 2,300,000 365,671
8 South Korea 2,061,000 327,673
9 France 2,060,000 327,514
10 Italy 1,874,000 297,942
11 Saudi Arabia 1,775,000 282,202
12 Mexico 1,752,000 278,546
13 United Kingdom 1,722,000 273,776
14 Brazil 1,610,000 255,970

[ChumpDumper]

Why do the neocons love air pollution?

[DarkReign]

this is practically sig worthy.

No, but that might have.

[spurster]

Point me to one scientist, in the discipline of climatology, that has published a paper saying anthropogenic global warming is an irrefutable fact and, in which, he lays out the scientific evidence.

Just one. And, that bogus UN ICC whatevertheyareandtheirscientificconcensus doesn't count.

So the 1000+ scientists behind the IPCC doesn't count? It impresses us all that you know more than they do.

[Yonivore]

So the 1000+ scientists behind the IPCC doesn't count? It impresses us all that you know more than they do.

The IPCC is a political do ent not a scientific paper. Name one of those 1000+ (LOL) that have written a scientific paper supporting the IPCC "concensus" do ent. Just one.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I don't buy the explaanations for Gore getting the prize. Nobel's will:

"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way:

The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall cons ute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by the Caroline Ins ute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, so that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not."

Now this was his will, and of course, mony funded by others can be used in other manners. Still, could someone explain to me how the dramatic steps required to eliminate man-made global warming as said by Gore promotes peace? How does it work towards the "abolition or reduction of standing armies?" If anything, it will cause more pressure on such things as energy becomes restricted.

[FromWayDowntown]

Curiously, the very language that you've underlined makes clear that work to abolish standing armies is not the sole criteria for awarding the Peace Prize.

I'll bold what you didn't:

and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

We've already covered this point elsewhere in the thread, but the history of the Peace Prize is replete with laureates whose contributions are more humanitarian in their effect than aimed at reducing warfare or assuring peace:

The term "fraternity" has a fairly broad meaning -- certainly, it could be read to encompass efforts to protect the world from a known danger; indeed, the prize has been awarded to those who undertake efforts that might be described as more humanitarian than peaceful. For instance, in 2006, the prize was awarded to Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank "for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work," and in 1999, Médecins Sans Frontières of Switzerland won the Prize "in recognition of the organization's pioneering humanitarian work on several continents." There are many other examples.

Because the history of the award demonstrates precedent for bestowing it upon those who engage in humanitarian efforts, there is certainly room to understand why Vice President Gore's efforts would attract the eye of the committee:

Obviously, there are many scientists who are very capable professionals who engage in the global warming debate in an earnest discussion of scientific fact. It would be difficult to convince any but the most ardent warming opponents that they lack a scientific basis for their concerns. And it would be difficult to convince most of the world that concerns about global warming are invalid in every respect. As such, since there is a reasonable debate about global warming's effect on our planet and since efforts to curb global warming could be reasonably seen as humanitarian efforts aimed at furthering fraternity among the nations, recognizing the work of those who fight global warming by the award of a Nobel Peace prize is understandable. That work, even if limited to an effort to bring the issues of global warming to the public in a format that is widely-available, provides a basis for the award, I think.

Please do try to keep up.

[ChumpDumper]

Fellas, Gore helped to get 172 countries to agree on something that could actually help mankind.

Let me know someone else who pulled off a similar feat and I'll consider writing a strongly worded email to the Nobel committee.

[Mr. Peabody]

Fellas, Gore helped to get 172 countries to agree on something that could actually help mankind.

Let me know someone else who pulled off a similar feat and I'll consider writing a strongly worded email to the Nobel committee.

It's obvious that the merit of these Nobel-winning acts is only being questioned to this extent because one of the Nobel recipients was Al Gore. Those of you on the right should look on the bright side, it gives Rush and Hannity something to whine about for the next six months.