Posted on 08/30/2007 9:10:38 PM PDT by Ghengis
Indian Tribal Leaders Honor Al Gore GAUHATI, India (AP) - Tribal kings and chieftains in a remote corner of India that is one of the rainiest places on Earth chose former Vice President Al Gore for their first "global award" for bringing attention to the dangers of climate change. More than 3,000 kings, chieftains and elders from Meghalaya, a northeastern state, decided to honor Gore after watching his Academy Award-winning documentary film, "An Inconvenient Truth." "We consider Al Gore a champion for putting the issue of climate change on the world's radar," said Robert Kharshiing, a lawmaker who chairs the Grassroots Democracy Advisory Council. "We want the world to know that our tiny state can face disastrous consequences too." The leaders say there has been significantly less rain in recent years in Cherrapunji and Mawsynram, towns that usually receive as much as 40 feet of rain each year. They worry global warming might be to blame for the change. This year's rainfall statistics were not available for the areas. Tribal leaders have planned a ceremony Oct. 6 to honor Gore. The council invited Gore to the ceremony, which will take place during a "people's parliament" that is expected to attract 300,000 people, but he has not said whether he will attend. "We have since received a reply from Mr. Gore's office saying he was very humbled hearing about the decision of people far away to confer him with the award," Kharshiing said.
Aug 30, 3:53 PM (ET)
By WASBIR HUSSAIN
Just goes to show, suckers can be found anywhere in the world.
Way too much FIRE WATER -— way too much.
And I thought this was going to be Algore’s designation as Chiet Walking Eagle.
You took the words right out of my mouth...er.. keyboard.
Duh!
Wrong kind of Indians....
oops
You mean “Chief Bull Droppings”
see the above posting...
see the above posting...
Well this is pretty scientific. I think we should re-evaluate Algore. Okay, that’s enough time. Nope, he’s still a poopy-head.
LOL!
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the “consensus view,” defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes’ work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that — whatever the cause may be — the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte’s survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of “90% likely” man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of “thousands of scientists” involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of “lead authors.” The introductory “Summary for Policymakers” — the only portion usually quoted in the media — is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters — the only text actually written by scientists — are edited to “ensure compliance” with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
Indians in India have Indian tribes too! Cool! You learn something new every day.
Wrong kind of Indians....
::::::
:-) Close enough....
buy Al Gore brand carbon credits
.
Very good potlatch!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.