From the Sunday Herald Sun:
THE award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the UN’s top climate panel on Friday has prompted a fresh chorus of criticism from global warming sceptics — with one dubbing the award “a political gimmick”.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
Critics can take solace in the notion that it’s a “Peace” (a la Green”peace”) prize, rather than a prize for science.
It galls me to say that, but it’s true.
Unfortunately, the committee granting the “Peace” Prize don’t seem to appreciate how shortages of basic resources have been proved repeatedly to be primary drivers of warfare.
That is to say, desperate encouragements for murdering others.
Al Gore’s “vision” for restraining “polluting” CO2 necessarily includes resource wars, with trade wars to follow–or precede–who knows?
The “vision” of governing CO2 emissions merely exhumes the “vision” of a world government which, supposedly with benevolent intent, decides who can have energy and who cannot.
Kiss your notions of personal freedom, and the notion of free markets, goodbye.
Gore has contributed to world peace via the notion that everything can be stultified by punishing the use of energy.
That’s right, of course. But the solution would not have worked back in the Late Middle Ages–when war was rampant due to resource shortages. It was the Little Ice Age, and people would kill for a handful or two of dried grain.
Back then, Gore would have demanded a cap-and-trade system for horses. Using archaic (i.e. “organic”) farming methods, one horse requires as much land for its sustenance (plain hay) as a human family of five.
sheesh.
The old world government hey?
And again rampant war – errr Iraq – unmitigated disaster brought by warmongers giving no solution, insecurity and quagmire.
Do you guys ever listen to yourself.
What a bunch of TOTAL wankers.
Go Gore !
Keelty has already made the link between AGW and peace very clear.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22476969-30417,00.html
“CLIMATE change, not terrorism, will be the main security issue of the century, with potential to cause death and destruction on an unprecedented scale, Australia’s top policeman believes.
In a surprise foray into the politics of global warming, Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty described how climate refugees “in their millions” could create a national security emergency for Australia.
His provocative comments, made in a speech in Adelaide last night, are likely to be diplomatically sensitive after he described a scenario in which China was unable to feed its vast population.
Law enforcement agencies would struggle to cope with global warming’s “potential to wreak havoc, cause more deaths and pose national security issues like we’ve never seen before”, Mr Keelty said. “It is anticipated the world will experience severe extremes in weather patterns, from rising global temperatures to rising sea levels,” he warned.
“We could see a catastrophic decline in the availability of fresh water. Crops could fail, disease could be rampant and flooding might be so frequent that people, en masse, would be on the move.
“Even if only some and not all of this occurs, climate change is going to be the security issue of the 21st century.”
Mr Keelty said the implications for China were especially alarming. By 2040, with global temperatures surging towards a predicted 3C rise, and sea levels up 50cm, the land available in China to grow grain and rice could be reduced by 30 per cent.
“The mass displacement of people, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, could create a great deal of social uncertainty and unrest in the region.
“In their millions, people will look for new land and they’ll cross borders to do it.” ”
Keelty is on a winner here; floods and droughts, yellow hordes sweeping from Asia like the 4 riders of the apocalypse.
That’s it Rog? Why don’t you just run up the white flag?
I am humbly and most gracious that the people at the Institute have finally recognised my gigantic and magnificent epic tale an Inconvenient Truth, take that Michael Moore you fatso and you are a liar.
“Global Warming and Me”, will be my follow up Movie, in this movie I will prove that not only is man, that’s you cretins, are not only stuffing up the earth and dicking around with Gaia, you have caused Global Warming on Mars and Jupiter and I may even infer that little planet circling Beta Centauri, is having doom floods and hurricanes because of YOU. (The last bit might be a bit too far out there, but then again it’s never stopped me before).
I will also prove that Man Made global warming caused the biblical floods and burnt down Sodmom and Gomorrah, started the great fire of London and caused Hiroshima. I will also clearly demonstrate that I am the centre of the universe, by saying it and encouraging other like paid oops minded people to agree.
Anyway can’t stop to debate, have another talk to give, that will be 1,000,000 Greenbacks, I am green I love Greenbacks.
(the price has gone up because I am now a Peace Prize recipient).
You are probably not bright enough to understand irony, SJT.
After the election I am thinking Keelty may/should/will have to resign, as a copper his deductive skills have jumped ship.
I am surprised at his obvious lack of intellect, China has always experienced drought, flood, famine and devastation on massive scale yet at each event miilions did not leave.
The simple fact is that the Chinese are now enjoying an increased prosperity thanks to the transition to a market economy. People go to China, they dont flee.
Keelty should stick to Indian doctors.
Internal BBC Memo:
From: Roger Harrabin – Internet
Sent: 12 October 2007 08:12
Subject: Guidance on Gore and Nobel Prize – please publish.
In any future reporting of Gore we should be careful not to suggest that the High Court says Gore was wrong on climate
The judge didn’t say that. He said Gore’s principle message on climate change was mainstream and uncontroversial. But he asked the government to make it plain in guidance notes to kids that nine points in the film were controversial.
He used the word “errors” but put it in inverted commas because the issues were not factual errors but issues of scientific debate.
We might say something like: “Al Gore whose film was judged by the High Court to have used some debatable science” or “Al Gore whose film was judged in the High Court to be controversial in parts”.
The key is to avoid suggesting that the judge disagreed with the main climate change thesis.
Please pass to presenters because this issue about Gore will arise again.
Ends
Also, comments can be sent to:
comments@nobelprize.org
It’s not too late to get the story right, I suppose.
Pls Paul, Its a minute to high noon, stand tall, its not your chance for a Nobel but do you want to be archived or even to be remembered as not just another loser on a one issue stand, but a guy with enough guts, give us just your one number, even a range because we can all except a bit of uncertainty, on the probability that recent ( past half century or so) global warming is mainly ie more than half anthropogenic. Come on Paul , know when to hold and when to fold, you are well across the issue and now you can be astride the crux. Come on Paul, you can do it, come Paul, come, come, OK relax abit ,come now,oo ah….. lie back and think of your childrens children – it is that simple. Is it 10% or is it 90% or where is it Paul.? stand up now Paul and be counted, your call Paul.!
Bazza – no one knows the answer. They would rather get rid of the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene Maximum is ‘work in progress’ for removal from history.
My view is that the current climate falls well within the natural variability of the 12,000 year old Holocene, with cooling set to follow the Modern warm Period very soon – may already have started given that 1998 remains the record instrumental global average temperature, and there has been little or no ocean warming for the paat 5 years according to the ARGO network.
The fact remains that there is no demonstration outside of climate models, that doubling CO2 in a complex, chaotic, non-linear climate system can drive big warming, or has done so in the past.
Thanks Paul, and moving right along, but I thought your statement that ‘there is no demonstration outside of climate models, that doubling CO2 in a complex, chaotic, non-linear climate system can drive big warming, or has done so in the past’a bit against the simple long known physics of atmospheric CO2. But what demonstration would you be happy with? – what demonstration are you looking for ‘outside of climate models’? Is there some interpretion of the past that isnt a model of how the system works. Can you give an example of where you would accept evidence from a model or indeed where you would not.?
Model predictions are unverifiable. When has CO2 been shown to drive climate, and where in the past has climate sensitivity been shown to be higher than around 1C?
Going back as far as IPCC 1990 is no help.
Steve McIntyre is on the same quest – he asked Gerry North for help:
Gerry, can you give me a reference to a clear up-to-date exposition of how increased CO2 translates into 2.5 deg C preferably using 1D or 2D models? I’m looking for something more sophisticated than Houghton’s arm-waving “the higher the colder” and something that does not import what seem to me to be the irrelevant numerical complications of GCMs. IPCC unfortunately does not deign to provide such explanations. I’m familiar with the Ramanathan vintage articles from the 1970s, but would like to see something more up to date. Perhaps something from your own work. Preferably something between 15 and 100 pages. Thanks, Steve
Gerry sent me a paper that he co-authored in 1993 together with the following covering note:
“Actually the higher the cooler is the best explanation.
But let’s go to the simple energy balance model, which you might prefer. The outgoing IR is given by an expression due to Budyko and used in all of my simple model papers: I=A+BT, where A and B are empirical constants and T is the surface temp in Celsius. The empirical constants come from satellite measurements of IR, fitting the seasonal cycle and the latitudinal dependence of temperature. Typically A = 200W/m^2 and B=2.00W/m^2 deg^{-1} (A and B vary a bit from study to study so they are at best approximate, but good enough for this exercise). For your reading pleasure, I am attaching an ancient paper of mine in which the fitting was done. It is important to note that B here contains important feedback information (for an earth with no atmosphere it would be more like 4.60). It presumably includes cloud and water vapor feedback.
The reduction of outgoing IR due to doubling CO2 is about 4 to 5 W/m^2. This comes from detailed radiative transfer calculations and it is not controversial.
But now take deltas: \Delta I=B \Delta T, and this leads to \Delta T=(4 or 5)/2.00 deg C and there you have it.
This is a zero dimensional model (global average). It has many faults, but seems to not be too far off. Analysis of output (just as though they produced real data) from most of the GCMs give about these same values for A and B, etc. This simple model probably includes the lapse rate feedback, etc. It does not include snow/ice feedback which would raise the sensitivity slightly. Finally, the fits do not properly take the tropics (all-important, unfortunately half the planet’s area) into account. Lindzen would argue that it fails miserably there. The clouds muck up the tiny seasonal and latitudinal signal in the tropics and this could change the result. I cannot deny it.
You have to take these simplified models with a grain of salt. They are good educational tools, but simply do not have all the physics in them. They would not pass your standards for due diligence, but they were cooked up as sanity checks on the big boys.”
“Model predictions are unverifiable. When has CO2 been shown to drive climate, and where in the past has climate sensitivity been shown to be higher than around 1C?”
Paul conveniently forgets:
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf
and http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf
Also of some relevance
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-plus-a-change/
I really don’t think you guys are up with the latest Hadley models – your critiques are dated and increasingly so.
A fourth-grade student could easily identify a “peace prize” as a political award.
After all, what’s more ‘political’ than peace? ‘Peace’ is where people don’t enforce ‘peace’ with guns. They talk, and assassinate each others’ reputations instead. Smarter people target good and bad ideas. (Sorry, Luke, I know you people would rather play the man than the ball.)
Al Gore richly [sic] deserves his Nobel Peace Prize, even though it will barely cover the cost of his travels by limousine and private jet.
Gore has unified the neo-Marxists better than anyone before him. Global control of energy use via the proxy of CO2 emissions is a master-stroke which could, with more effort, ensure that global Environmental Planning supplants Economic Planning as the ideal situation for *Homo sovieticus*.
Once the (human) world has learned to live within the “planned environment,” the Soviet vision will be achieved.
Control energy, and you control everything. Even the proles in media and government will applaud!
Brilliant.
Now he’s a neo-Marxist. ROTFL to the 10th power. Keep going Schiller – you can’t this sort of comedy anywhere else but here.
Actually it’s black comedy.
“‘Peace’ is where people don’t enforce ‘peace’ with guns.” which leads to ….
Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded coalition forces in Iraq for a year beginning in June 2003, delivered a harsh critique of the Bush team’s civilian leadership, joining a long list of retired military officials going public over what they see as failed policies in Iraq.
The attack comes as the White House had won back some political momentum in Washington on the war.
“The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder responsibility for this catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable” the retired General Sanchez told US military reporters.
“There has been a glaring unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders.”
This is what you’re on about Schiller – you warmonger. “Mission not accomplished”. You make me sick.
Gore’s peace gift has nothing to do with Iraq. Sanchez didn’t criticize the mission but the need for greater resources to complete the mission.
This post is about Gore. This is one of the better articles that I’ve seen on the subject.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gore's+prize%3A+A+fraud+on+the+people&articleId=c55c0e3e-f569-4b50-83f6-8431bde279dd
Gore’s prize: A fraud on the people
“Five Norwegians gave a prize to Al Gore, and all the world is supposed to heed his counsel henceforth. No, thanks.
“Alfred Nobel felt horrible about the uses to which his invention — dynamite — was put. So he endowed the Nobel Peace Prize and instructed that it go ‘to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.’
Al Gore has done exactly none of those things.
“…The Nobel Peace Prize is worse than a joke. It’s a fraud. It is such a transparent fraud that the five Norwegian politicians who award it have been reduced to defending their decision by concocting elaborate rationalizations. This year they laughably claimed that Gore deserves the prize because, well, global climate change ‘may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth’s resources,’ and ‘there may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars.’ ….”
Woody
that’s Keelty says.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22476969-30417,00.html
“CLIMATE change, not terrorism, will be the main security issue of the century, with potential to cause death and destruction on an unprecedented scale, Australia’s top policeman believes.
In a surprise foray into the politics of global warming, Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty described how climate refugees “in their millions” could create a national security emergency for Australia.
His provocative comments, made in a speech in Adelaide last night, are likely to be diplomatically sensitive after he described a scenario in which China was unable to feed its vast population.
Law enforcement agencies would struggle to cope with global warming’s “potential to wreak havoc, cause more deaths and pose national security issues like we’ve never seen before”, Mr Keelty said. “It is anticipated the world will experience severe extremes in weather patterns, from rising global temperatures to rising sea levels,” he warned.
“We could see a catastrophic decline in the availability of fresh water. Crops could fail, disease could be rampant and flooding might be so frequent that people, en masse, would be on the move.
“Even if only some and not all of this occurs, climate change is going to be the security issue of the 21st century.”
Mr Keelty said the implications for China were especially alarming. By 2040, with global temperatures surging towards a predicted 3C rise, and sea levels up 50cm, the land available in China to grow grain and rice could be reduced by 30 per cent.
“The mass displacement of people, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, could create a great deal of social uncertainty and unrest in the region.
“In their millions, people will look for new land and they’ll cross borders to do it.” ”
So now Keelty is an expert on what China will do in response to a hypothetical rise in sea level of 50 cm? Remember, these are the people who, 2000 years ago, built the only man made object that can be seen from space. The Great Wall was built by hand, by a much smaller population, on a much lower technical level, and on a much lower economic base.
It is 5 to 6 metres high and stretches for the approximate distance of the Chinese coastline.
Do these morons seriously think the current ascendent China would be incapable of raising the existing dunes and levee systems by 50cm over half a f#@$%&g century?
Do they seriously think such a measure would not be justified on economic grounds with even a 50% increase in food prices, let alone the 400% increases being spoken of lately?
Keelty and the IPCC are totally out of their depth.
Hey, Ian, you might want to read this.
http://www.snopes.com/science/greatwall.asp
or this.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/in-china-a-lakes-brave-crusader-is-silenced/2007/10/14/1192300598525.html
Off topic and not relevant, SJT. Once again you pick up on what was a minor detail (does anyone give a toss whether the wall can be seen from space) but ignore the key issue.
Uncle Hu and his mates are not known for standing around like dynamited mullet while 30% of their agricultural capacity goes under water. But the climate cretins don’t think twice about using such a dubious assumption in their climate scarenarios.
Ian
now you know what happens to Luke all the time.