"OSLO (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for giving the world "hope for a better future" and striving for nuclear disarmament, ....

"The first African-American to hold his country's highest office, Obama has called for disarmament and worked to restart the stalled Middle East peace process since taking office in January.

"'Very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future,' the committee said in a citation."

Ha ha ha ha ha ... ha ha ha ... ha ha ... ha ...

Cynics live every day thinking the worse of others and themselves. The power of words and most importantly of ideas is appreciated by most the world...just not the US of A where "what's in it for me?" will be our national epitath

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cynics live every day thinking the worse of others
> and themselves. The power of words and most
> importantly of ideas is appreciated by most the
> world...just not the US of A where "what's in it
> for me?" will be our national epitath


Look in the mirror, Vince(1)

Alice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Cynics live every day thinking the worse of
> others
> > and themselves. The power of words and most
> > importantly of ideas is appreciated by most the
> > world...just not the US of A where "what's in
> it
> > for me?" will be our national epitath
>
>
> Look in the mirror, Vince(1)

He can't, he's already IN Wonderland...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

I voted for him and generally am fairly left of centre - but honestly I think this cheapens the Nobel - Obama hasn't done anything worthy enough to deserve this prize. Guantanamo is still open, wire-tapping continues, Iraq is still going on, rendition hasn't been dropped, Afghanistan is going to be bolstered, he's bailed out on a proper health scheme, and thrown hundreds of billions at banks/financials - doesn't sound like much of a dem to me.

He's brought back the goodwill of the American people in the eyes of the world. After the hole Bush dug us into over the last 8 years, he managed to mostly unwind all those years of damage in less than a year. Good for him.

also Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He's brought back the goodwill of the American
> people in the eyes of the world. After the hole
> Bush dug us into over the last 8 years, he managed
> to mostly unwind all those years of damage in less
> than a year. Good for him.

What?! He hasn't done any of that yet. He's working on it, but it's not "Mission Accomplished".

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

He hasn't declared "Mission Accomplished" like some jackass did a few years ago while wearing a flight suit. Let's just agree that things are considerably better for America in the eyes of the world and global economy since Obama took office.

As a horny gay dem that bends over every chance I get, I know I am so excited about this news, I am going on a blumpkin giving spree this weekend. YIPEEE!

I AM A GAY REPUBLICAN, LIKE ALL OF THEM ARE.

THEY HAVE FAMILIES, YES, BUT PREFER GLORY HOLES.

LOL, I'm not even exaggerating when I say that I honestly thought the announcement at 5 AM was a joke. The news caster said: "And the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize............Obama", and I just sat there waiting for him to say "Just kidding", but it NEVER came. This truly dishonors the award, and since we can honestly view a pattern here (Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Barack Obama), we now know that it is a highly political and partisan award indeed.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> since we can honestly view a
> pattern here (Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Barack
> Obama), we now know that it is a highly political
> and partisan award indeed.


No sh*t, Sherlock.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2012 08:44PM by Alias.

what gets me is that they decided it 17 days after he was sworn into office. seriously, talk about jumping the gun.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

he was nominated 17 days after he took office. they did not vote till later. anyway it is a statement of how bad the world feels bush was not how good Obama is. We scared the shit out of the entire world under bush. didnt do us, global peace or global financial markets any good either.

it will take a decade to recover from bush - this prize is an award for starting the journey. weird.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2012 08:35PM by Alias.

Even that liberal rag, the Washington Post, wrote that it should have gone to Neda of Iran instead.

Obama is apparently very well liked in Europe.

For whatever that is worth.

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> he was nominated 17 days after he took office.
> they did not vote till later.

my bad.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL, I'm not even exaggerating when I say that I
> honestly thought the announcement at 5 AM was a
> joke. The news caster said: "And the winner of the
> 2009 Nobel Peace Prize............Obama", and I
> just sat there waiting for him to say "Just
> kidding", but it NEVER came. This truly dishonors
> the award, and since we can honestly view a
> pattern here (Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Barack
> Obama), we now know that it is a highly political
> and partisan award indeed.


See this is where you prove your ignorance.

Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating an agreement between Isreal and Egypt - two countries that had been at war since anyone could remember.

It was a truly magnificent accomplishmnent. Today there are daily flights between the countries and 30 years NOT ONE clause in the agreement has been broken by either party. Carter accepted the prize on the condition that the Sadat and Begin accept it with him. They did. The picture of the three leaders together - something no one thought would ever happen - stunned and amazed the world

Al Gore won it for bringing attention to climate change, which I am guessing you do not believe. But it is real and the rest of the world knows it.

Dane Bramage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even that liberal rag, the Washington Post, wrote
> that it should have gone to Neda of Iran instead.
>
The Washington Post is NOT a "liberal rag". If you knew ANYTHING about the history and philosophy of the Post you would know it was founded on Libertarian ideals and continues to this day.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> The Washington Post is NOT a "liberal rag". If you
> knew ANYTHING about the history and philosophy of
> the Post you would know it was founded on
> Libertarian ideals and continues to this day.

You probably also think the NYT and MSNBC are not biased.

The Post has a liberal bias, the journalists are predominantly on the left, and it influences their work. Heck, Ruth Marcus, the paper's deputy national editor from 1999 through 2002 admitted in an article today that she admires, likes, and voted for Obama...

It's okay for the media to have a bias (as in Fox news), but not seeing it as such is equivalent to drinking the koolaid, imo.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Washington Post is NOT a "liberal rag". If you
> knew ANYTHING about the history and philosophy of
> the Post you would know it was founded on
> Libertarian ideals and continues to this day.


If you think the Washington Post is not a liberal rag, you probably also think this guy is a marathon runner:
Attachments:

Hey you guys! Guess what! Obama won the Nobel Peace prize...

What do you think about that?
Attachments:

Dane Bramage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >
> > The Washington Post is NOT a "liberal rag". If
> you
> > knew ANYTHING about the history and philosophy
> of
> > the Post you would know it was founded on
> > Libertarian ideals and continues to this day.
>
> You probably also think the NYT and MSNBC are not
> biased.
>
> The Post has a liberal bias, the journalists are
> predominantly on the left, and it influences their
> work. Heck, Ruth Marcus, the paper's deputy
> national editor from 1999 through 2002 admitted in
> an article today that she admires, likes, and
> voted for Obama...
>
> It's okay for the media to have a bias (as in Fox
> news), but not seeing it as such is equivalent to
> drinking the koolaid, imo.

Again - you are proving your ignorance.

Please provide me with a few instances of "liberal bias" in the Post and I will be happy to provide you with news stories the Post broke about "the liberals" you think they are in bed with.

And just because someone voted for Obama does not prove a liberal bias. Have you forgotten that for the last eight years the White House either used the press for its own advantage or completely ignored them.

The White house Press Secretary was congratulated by President Bush after his second election for "not saying anything". The White house secretly leaked information to the New York Times about Iraq having WMDs just before Cheney went on Meet The Press to discuss Iraq and WMDs. Cheney said on MTP "it is reported in the NEW YORK TIMES...." to bolster his case knowing full well that information leaked was propaganda from his office.

So perhaps the "liberal press" wanted a less secretive, more open administration?

And please describe the term "liberal" to me. It is a label that is thrown around but has yet to defined.

I know people were laughing like this when I announced my gayness back in high school.

I should've kept it to myself.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2012 08:20PM by Alias.

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2012 08:11PM by Alias.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> See this is where you prove your ignorance...
> Al Gore won it for bringing attention to climate
> change, which I am guessing you do not believe.
> But it is real and the rest of the world knows it.


[1] The posting of scientists' email from the East Anglia Climate Research
Unit is huge news, showing the incredible deceitfulness of the Director of the
very institution, the CRU, which is being relied upon by the EPA to declare that
global warming is happening as a result of carbon dioxide.

In the emails, Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, speaks of taking steps to “hide
the decline” in temperature that would undermine his claim that man is causing
global warming. The authenticity of those emails is made clear in Jones’ interview
with Australia’s Investigate Magazine:

In an exclusive interview with Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition, Jones confirms
his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears
to have come from his organisation....

In one email dating back to 1999, Jones appears to talk of fudging scientific data
on climate change to “hide the decline”...

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to
each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for
Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values
while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real
for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61–90. The
Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.”....

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing hiding “the decline”, and Jones
explained he was not trying to mislead...

Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”.

“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote
ten years ago?”

--Ian Wishart, "Climate Centre Hacked," Investigate Magazine, Nov. 20, 2009, pg. 1 (Volume 2, Issue 50).
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf [time-limited link to original article]
http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118571&page=5 [permalink to a portion of the article]


The EPA is relying on the CRU in its proposed endangerment finding, which will
say that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming, and thus is subject to
regulation under the Clean Air Act.

The "trick" language may or may not be a smoking gun, in context. But there’s a
lot of other stuff in there. One talks about making a .15degC adjustment to data
to minimize a “blip” in the sea surface temperature data. It talks about not
wanting to make the blip disappear entirely, because it also existed in the land
temp data, but says the guy “deliberately chose” the .15 degC figure to best
minimize the SST blip without making it disappear.

Leaving issues of intentional, malicious manipulation aside, what is clear beyond
doubt in the e-mails is how much of the data for global warming depends on
assumptions and interpretations of very dodgy raw data, some of it very scarce
raw data, in terms of number of samples.

What’s also clear is how desperate the global warming scare-mongers are to keep
the raw data out of the hands of the public. They hide behind claimed
confidentiality agreements. But if the raw data isn’t made available to other
researchers, than it isn’t reproducible. And if it’s not reproducible, then it’s
not science.

Specifically, if it’s not “reproducible” and “objective”, the manipulated
temperature data can’t be relied on by the EPA, and indeed, violates the EPA’s
own data-quality guidelines and Information Quality Act standards. See Guidelines
for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency, at pg. 15
(requiring “integrity”); pg. 20 (requiring “reproducibility”) (EPA/260R-02–008,
October 2002); see also Office of Management and Budget, Guidelines for Ensuring
and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information
Disseminated by Federal Agencies; Republication, 67 FR 8452, 8453 (Feb. 22, 2002)
(requiring “utility,” “objectivity” and “integrity”); id. at 8460 (requiring
“integrity” and “reproducibility”).


It further reveals the elegance of the “consensus” argument.

The Global Warming proponents say, essentially, that their opponents must be
wrong since there is so little peer-reviewed literature backing them. Now we find
out why — the proponents are moving heaven and earth to stop the journals
accepting their opponents’ papers. It’s breathtakingly cynical and deceitful.

This is scientific misconduct, pure and simple. The emails detail attempts to
violate scientific ethics, corrupt the peer review process, and arguably even to
corrupt the data itself.

For example, there is detailed evidence on Anthony Watts’ site, http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
showing that the tree ring data for the 20th century is from 12 trees cherry-
picked from a larger group of 200 trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Northern Siberia.

The most damning emails are those where Phil Jones asks Mann to delete emails
relating to AR4! What. The. Hell! You can’t make this stuff up.

Among the emails at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7806#comment-366185, Phil Jones wrote in 2005:

The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever
hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete
the file rather than send to anyone.

Then in a message that made the news, here is Phil Jones August 2009 at Pielke Jr.‘s blog:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing
series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular
country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage
availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple
sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity
issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the
value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

So in 2005, the data existed but he said that he’d delete before releasing it.

In 2009 after multiple FOIA requests, the data no longer exists.

This is data that the UK and US governments paid Jones millions to compile and
safeguard.

It can’t be explained away with any amount of handwaving. This is Inspector General
and Congressional hearing level stuff. It isn’t just a tempest in a teapot.

If it’s real science, then the investigators should WELCOME scrutiny, unless they
are trying to hide something.

Evidently, they are trying to hide something.

Source: http://volokh.com/2009/11/20/climate-scientists-unfiltered/#comments


[2] It now turns out that overall global warming really did stop in 1998. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

This despite all the good Democrats and "progressives" telling us for years that
anyone pointing out this fact is "anti-science," etc.

Don't worry, Al Gore is already rich. On the other hand, 800 million Africans
live on less than a dollar per year, and fossil fuels could help to improve their
world far more quickly than solar power, or anything else 'green' at this time.

And that's the point, really. They say we cannot wait to make radical changes...
so the world's poor will have to wait longer before progress through development
and expanding capitalism can help them help themselves.

That's the dirty secret of global warming and the entire Al Gore enterprise.
1.6 billion people alive in the world today have no electricity, a third of those
in Africa alone, and rainbow-colored windmills ain't gonna get it to them. Those
people are not interested in our putting the brakes on clean coal, nuclear power,
more oil, etc.

The only people truly invested in our doing all that are those who seek
centralized power and control over the huddled masses. Because they know
better, apparently, even though what they know seems to change every few
years.

Source: http://hughhewitt.com/blog/g/71d58dfa-af84-41c2-ac6e-b199f7c64e2a