So, exactly what...

[Wild Cobra]

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 was simply pointion aout the key criteria missed. Those three qualifiers were not 'this, or, this, or this,' but the third one used an "AND" qualifier. Now correct me if I'm wrong, English is my worse subject....

Doesn't that ,mean all three must apply?

I read it as:

done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations

AND

for the abolition or reduction of standing armies

AND

for the holding and promotion of peace congresses

If I'm wrong about commas and "and/or" qualifiers then fine. Am I?

[Wild Cobra]

China?!?

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

Wow... I missed this statement until seeing others point it out.

Sorry Dan, China's industrial base is growing real fast. I don't recall the numbers, but I think it was either 12% or 18% annual growth of greenhouse gas emissions these last few years. The have recently surpassed the USA in greenhouse gas emissions!

Your 1/8th figure I think is from a chart showing 1994 numbers for China and 2002 numbers for the USA, ant it's a per capita number.

The actual numbers are 3650 for China 1994 vs. 6746 for the USA 2002 numbers. I think the numbers are mega-tons, but I'm not sure.

link:

China now no. 1 in CO2 emissions; USA in second position; part of article:

In 2006 global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use increased by about 2.6%, which is less than the 3.3% increase in 2005. The 2.6% increase is mainly due to a 4.5% increase in global coal consumption, of which China contributed more than two-third. China’s 2006 CO2 emissions surpassed those of the USA by 8%. This includes CO2 emissions from industrial processes (cement production). With this, China tops the list of CO2 emitting countries for the first time. In 2005, CO2 emissions of China were still 2% below those of the USA. These figures are based on a preliminary estimate by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), using recently published BP (British Petroleum) energy data and cement production data. In the 1990-2006 period global fossil-fuel related CO2 emissions increased over 35%.

[Wild Cobra]

Now Dan, you posted a nice usage of oil. What about coal?

Coal consumption (Most recent) by country:

#1 China: 1,310,000,000
#2 United States: 1,060,000,000
#3 India: 339,000,000
#4 Russia: 298,000,000
#5 Germany: 265,000,000
#6 South Africa: 170,500,000
#7 Japan: 149,500,000
#8 Australia: 144,170,000
#9 Korea, North: 103,600,000
#10 Ukraine: 97,200,000

etc. etc.

[FromWayDowntown]

I was simply pointion aout the key criteria missed. Those three qualifiers were not 'this, or, this, or this,' but the third one used an "AND" qualifier. Now correct me if I'm wrong, English is my worse subject....

Doesn't that ,mean all three must apply?

I read it as:

done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations

AND

for the abolition or reduction of standing armies

AND

for the holding and promotion of peace congresses

If I'm wrong about commas and "and/or" qualifiers then fine. Am I?

You should really take that up with the Nobel committee. I'm quite confident that the committee has considered the wishes set forth in Alfred Nobel's will in deciding the recipients of this year's awards. I'd also note that, again, this committee has previously used that precise language to award the prize to those whose works were humanitarian rather than peaceful.

I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you arguing that the committee should be comprised of strict constructionists? Maybe President Bush can appoint several Will Originalists or a couple of Textualists to the committee in the near future. For now, I'm content that a committee that has routinely awarded this prize to humanitarians has not gone so far afield from its charter in bestowing the prize this year as to make the whole thing historically untenable.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you arguing that the committee should be comprised of strict constructionists?

The committee can do as they please as long as it wasn't with the money willed by Nobel. That money is likely long gone, but I don't really know. Is the Nobel prize funded by some means now?

I was simply pointing out it was not by the original intent. I believe I already covered the willed money aspect. If I didn't, I meant to.

We have seen for some years now that the Nobel prizes have become more political than by original intent. One of those pains in life we must accept.

As for strict constructionist application? I've seen the word used different ways. If by what I consider it to mean, then yes. I would like to see that applied. I like the original intent idea that matures with modern times.

Still, how does a film on global warming bring peace? It has helped to bring people together for a common goal, but that goal has little to do with peace. It's the environment!

[George Gervin's Afro]

IN MY OPINON We have seen for some years now that the Nobel prizes have become more political than by original intent. One of those pains in life we must accept.

I fixed your post for you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The committee can do as they please as long as it wasn't with the money willed by Nobel. That money is likely long gone, but I don't really know. Is the Nobel prize funded by some means now?

I was simply pointing out it was not by the original intent. I believe I already covered the willed money aspect. If I didn't, I meant to.

We have seen for some years now that the Nobel prizes have become more political than by original intent. One of those pains in life we must accept.

As for strict constructionist application? I've seen the word used different ways. If by what I consider it to mean, then yes. I would like to see that applied. I like the original intent idea that matures with modern times.

Still, how does a film on global warming bring peace? It has helped to bring people together for a common goal, but that goal has little to do with peace. It's the environment!

Some people find the environment pretty important as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Some people find the environment pretty important as well.

Then create a separate environmental award...

I wonder who should have been given the peace award?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Then create a separate environmental award...

I wonder who should have been given the peace award?

Well then you and your fellow bretheren need to stop the whining and create your own award for the hush's and whannitys of the world..

[Hook Dem]

One thing can be counted on in this forum. Liberals hate conservatives and conservatives hate liberals. Please feel free to deny that!!!!!

[spurster]

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.

Here are a few US scientists backing the IPCC:

http://www.ipccinfo.com/briefings.php

[Oh, Gee!!]

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.

and what will you do with the information if provided? will it convince you of anything? so why should I or anyone else bother to provide you with information you'll simply dismiss or call non-scientific political propoganda?

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.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying I ain't doing a damn thing for you.

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

well bully for them

[spurster]

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.

How about a whole issue of Nature, a scientific journal you may have heard of.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/445567a.html

[boutons_]

October 15, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

Gore Derangement Syndrome

By PAUL KRUGMAN

On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.

And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with “that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance.” You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change — therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.

Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.

The solution to such conflicts between self-interest and the common good is to provide individuals with an incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the U.S. “cap and trade” system of emission permits on sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing acid rain.

Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get.

Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

=============

Naturally, the right-wing-nuts here think (popularly elected) Gore would have been a worse president than the the (SCOTUS-elected) worst president in the history of US.

[Yonivore]

How about a whole issue of Nature, a scientific journal you may have heard of.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/445567a.html

You linked to an article on the IPCC report. It doesn't even have a name attached to it. Sorry, Nature is the Newsweek of Science. Now, if you point to where they published a scientist's paper on climate change, that'd be different.

[Yonivore]

and what will you do with the information if provided?

Read it.

will it convince you of anything?

I won't know that until I read it.

so why should I or anyone else bother to provide you with information...

Because that's usually the way debates and arguments are waged. You make an argument, support it with factual references and I have an opportunity to scrutinize your references in order to formulate a response.

you'll simply dismiss or call non-scientific political propoganda?

Sounds to me like you've already characterized your own resources.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying I ain't doing a damn thing for you.

Okay. Then I win the argument.

well bully for them

Yes, bully for them. Especially since you don't see any of their peers -- only Algore and Hollywood types -- refuting them.

Bully for them, indeed.

[Yonivore]

Here are a few US scientists backing the IPCC:

http://www.ipccinfo.com/briefings.php

From the lead paragraph of your link:

Four regional pre-release briefings were held for the Northeast, West, Midwest and South April 2-4, 2007 to allow reporters to talk with leading scientists who are experts on what global warming may mean for their region and to obtain background on the IPCC working group reports

I don't see any of their papers linked in the article and the nowhere in the link does it talk about anthropogenic causes of global warming.

But, thanks for the link none-the-less, I'll give it a read.

[George Gervin's Afro]

and what will you do with the information if provided? will it convince you of anything? so why should I or anyone else bother to provide you with information you'll simply dismiss or call non-scientific political propoganda?



I'm not saying that. I'm saying I ain't doing a damn thing for you.



well bully for them

hey gee Yoni always wins. he declares himself the winner all of the time.

[Yonivore]

Behind link #1 we have Professor J. D. Aber, PhD. Below are the publications they selected to list on the link your page led to. You'll notice not one on Anthropogenic Climate Change. Not a single one...

Aber, J.D., W.H. McDowell, K.J. Nadelhoffer, A. Magill, G. Berntson, M. Kamakea, S.G. McNulty, W. Currie, L. Rustad and I. Fernandez. 1998. Nitrogen saturation in temperate forest ecosystems: hypotheses revisited. BioScience 48:921-934

Aber, J.D. and R. Freuder. 2000. Sensitivity of a forest production model to variation in solar radiation data sets for the Eastern U.S. Climate Research 15:33-43

Aber, J.D. 2001. Reaching Scientific Consensus and Informing Public Policy. BioScience 51:699

Aber, J.D., S.V. Ollinger, C.T. Driscoll, G.E. Likens, R.T. Holmes, R.J. Freuder, and C.L. Goodale 2002. Inorganic N losses from a forested ecosystem in response to physical, chemical, biotic and climatic perturbations. Ecosystems 5:648-658

Aber, J.D., C.L. Goodale, S.V. Ollinger, M.-L. Smith, A.H. Magill, M.E. Martin, J.L. Stoddard. 2003. Is nitrogen altering the nitrogen status of northeastern forests? BioScience 53:375-390

Foster, D.R., F. Swanson, J. Aber, D. Tilman, N. Brockaw, I. Burke and A Knapp. 2003. The importance of land-use and its legacies to ecology and environmental management. BioScience 53:77-88

Goodale, C.L., J.D. Aber and P.M. Vitousek. 2003. An unexpected nitrate decline in New Hampshire streams. Ecosystems 6:75-86

Galloway, J.N., J.D. Aber, J.W. Erisman, S.P. Seitzinger, R.H. Howarth, E.B. Cowling and B.J. Cosby. 2003. The Nitrogen Cascade. Bioscience 53:341-356

Driscoll, C.T., D. Whitall, J. Aber, E. Boyer, M. Castro, C. Cronan, C. Goodale, P. Groffman, C. Hopkinson, K. Lambert, G. Lawrence and S. Ollinger. 2003. Nitrogen Pollution in the northeastern United States: Sources, effects and management options. BioScience 53:357-374

Venterea, R.T., P.M Groffman, L.V. Verchot, A.H. Magill, J.D. Aber and P.A. Steudler. 2003 Nitrogen oxide gas emissions from temperate forest soils receiving long-term nitrogen inputs. Global Change Biology 9:346-357

We'll keep looking...

[Oh, Gee!!]

Because that's usually the way debates and arguments are waged. You make an argument, support it with factual references and I have an opportunity to scrutinize your references in order to formulate a response.

there's no point, yoni. it doesn't matter what I provide to you, you're mind is made up. a debate would be meaningless because we would both stick to our guns and nothing would be resolved.

Sounds to me like you've already characterized your own resources. Okay. Then I win the argument.

whatever floats your boat

[Yonivore]

there's no point, yoni. it doesn't matter what I provide to you, you're mind is made up. a debate would be meaningless because we would both stick to our guns and nothing would be resolved.

D'okie dokie.

whatever floats your boat

It floats my Spurstalk boat...a little something I tow behind my yacht of a life.

[Yonivore]

hey gee Yoni always wins. he declares himself the winner all of the time.

Hey, if he gives up...

And, I thought you had a good memory...you even said so in that other thread where you're kind of stalkerishly fawning all over me. Personally, I don't recall having declared victory in an argument on here unless, as in this case, the other poster just simply gives up.

[spurster]

Behind link #1 we have Professor J. D. Aber, PhD. Below are the publications they selected to list on the link your page led to. You'll notice not one on Anthropogenic Climate Change. Not a single one...

Do you have a clue about how science is done? It's pretty clear to me that he is working on understanding one part of the whole picture.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It floats my Spurstalk boat...a little something I tow behind my yacht of a life.

whatevz

[Yonivore]

Do you have a clue about how science is done? It's pretty clear to me that he is working on understanding one part of the whole picture.

Yes, I understand how science is done. And, it's not by "concensus."

Look, I'm just asking for one published, peer-reviewed scientific paper by one (or more) scientist(s) where the hypothesis relates to how man is causing global climate change and then sets about proving that hypothesis, using the scientific method and by providing the underlying factual data.

How hard can that be with all this "concensus?"