Person of the Year

Dan Same

Late last week environmentalist Tim Flannery was named Australian of the Year. Now, this got me thinking. Which person has been the most inspirational, influential (on a positive note) and the most significant person of the past year? Although I'm yet to pick a candidate myself, I'm curious as to what you think.

So that this doesn't lead to a discussion in which people start attacking other points of views I do think that one rule should be in place: No active politicans. Since most discussions that stir up too much controversy involve politics, I think we should stay away from active politicans.

So who do you think? Which person has had the most positive effect on the past year and/or has been the most inspirational?

Mr Martini

It's always hard to narrow these things down to just one person. Many people have done many things that are inspirational. Bono, with all the charity work he does. Oprah seems to be a very giving person also. But those are celebritys. What about the people you don't hear about on a daily basis? Instead of naming a name, I think the best person of the year, or any year is the person who lays their life on the line, so another person can survive.

Barry Nelson

If you eliminate politicians who have the power to put in place policies that make a difference this becomes a hard choice. Off the top of my head I would say Warren Buffett who donates almost all of his billions to the Gates Foundation to be used for charity work, much of it in Africa.

Dan Same

Barry Nelson wrote:

If you eliminate politicians who have the power to put in place policies that make a difference this becomes a hard choice.

The problem is that such policies are often extremely controversial. Furthermore, if we are talking about politicians who can truly change the world (the President of the US as opposed to the Prime Minister of Fiji), then the policies become even more controversial. (I don't think I need to mention the most obvious example. :v) BTW, I agree with you on Buffett. He would indeed be a worthy choice. -{

Number24

I say Al Gore. Active politician - no. controversial - yes.

Instead of taking some fat job on some big companies board (for doing next to nothing) or making a living holding lectures about his time in the White House, he takes on perhaps the biggest threat of our time. He will be remembered for his fight for our common tomorrow, not just the guy who lost the presidency to Bush jr.
He could have turned into a sulking looser, but instead he has shown what the ancient romans called GRAVITAS. I hope the norwegian Nobel commity awards him the pease prize!

Nightshooter

Now if only Gore didn't have such a wasteful house. I think his house wasted 20 times more electricity than an average person's house. His hypocrisy certainly disqualifies him, IMO.

Barry Nelson

I am with Night on this one, IMO Gore is a propagandist. His movie An Inconveniant Truth was full of half truths and false facts. For example, he compares the amount of ice that melted in Greenland in 1953 to the amount that melted in 2004. Because more melted in 2004 than 1953 he says this is proof the ice in Greenland is melting at a fast pace. However, what he doesn't tell you is that 1953 happened to be a very warm year and 2004 a very cold year. On the other hand 1952 was a very cold year and if he compared 1952 to 2004 it would appear the earth was cooling not warming. This is just one example of how statistics can be manipulated to prove a point.

For more on Gore's false assumptions check out the link attached, which has some real science to it.

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5820.pdf

Let me close by saying, I not looking to start a huge argument about global warming. It is my opinion that the global warming frenzy is overblown. That is my opinion, if you disagree with me that is fine.

Number24

Admireable people often has weaknesses and faults.
Churchill was a drunk, Kennedy was a womanizer.
It doesn't make them less great. The fact that Gore polutes more than you and me doeswn't make his message any less important.
The Greenland ice is melting, there is no doubt among scientists. You are just playing with numbers. The melting of ice caps and glaciers is real. I have a tiny glacier just outside the window of my childhood home. Want to argue?
And do you know polar expeditions bring drysuits for swimming short distances? It's been common for the last ten years. Before that, no-one did.

Barry Nelson

Number24 wrote:

Admireable people often has weaknesses and faults.
Churchill was a drunk, Kennedy was a womanizer.
It doesn't make them less great. The fact that Gore polutes more than you and me doeswn't make his message any less important.
The Greenland ice is melting, there is no doubt among scientists. You are just playing with numbers. The melting of ice caps and glaciers is real. I have a tiny glacier just outside the window of my childhood home. Want to argue?
And do you know polar expeditions bring drysuits for swimming short distances? It's been common for the last ten years. Before that, no-one did.

Well 24 I respect your opinion, but disagree. Is the earth warming? Maybe, but not enough to effect the earth's population in the next several 100 years or so. The earth has warmed and cooled throughout its existence. I have attached a link from a site called EcoWorld, one of the few sites that offers a balanced view. Read it, if you want some real facts. If you read it, you will see that the outer edges of Greenland are melting, but the ice in the center of the island is thickening. If Greenland's ice continues to melt at the current rate, the oceans will rise by about an inch or two in the next 100 years. Hardly a disaster. The article has many other links that discuss the global warming issue if you care to read.

Once again my overall point is that the earth may be warming slightly, but not to any degree that will cause the cataclismic events that the environmentalists would want you to believe.

http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2006/10/20/greenlands-ice-melting-slowly/

Nightshooter

Number24 wrote:

Churchill was a drunk, Kennedy was a womanizer.

The difference is that Churchill wasn't preaching about the dangers of drinking, and Kennedy wasn't telling everyone to stop having sex.

emtiem

Barry Nelson wrote:

I am with Night on this one, IMO Gore is a propagandist. His movie An Inconveniant Truth was full of half truths and false facts. For example, he compares the amount of ice that melted in Greenland in 1953 to the amount that melted in 2004. Because more melted in 2004 than 1953 he says this is proof the ice in Greenland is melting at a fast pace. However, what he doesn't tell you is that 1953 happened to be a very warm year and 2004 a very cold year. On the other hand 1952 was a very cold year and if he compared 1952 to 2004 it would appear the earth was cooling not warming. This is just one example of how statistics can be manipulated to prove a point.

But if more ice melted in a cold year than in a warm year, doesn't that suggest that something is going a bit funny?

highhopes

Barry Nelson wrote:

I am with Night on this one, IMO Gore is a propagandist. His movie An Inconveniant Truth was full of half truths and false facts. For example, he compares the amount of ice that melted in Greenland in 1953 to the amount that melted in 2004. Because more melted in 2004 than 1953 he says this is proof the ice in Greenland is melting at a fast pace. However, what he doesn't tell you is that 1953 happened to be a very warm year and 2004 a very cold year. On the other hand 1952 was a very cold year and if he compared 1952 to 2004 it would appear the earth was cooling not warming. This is just one example of how statistics can be manipulated to prove a point.

For more on Gore's false assumptions check out the link attached, which has some real science to it.

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5820.pdf

Let me close by saying, I not looking to start a huge argument about global warming. It is my opinion that the global warming frenzy is overblown. That is my opinion, if you disagree with me that is fine.

I have to agree with Night and Barry. And I like Al Gore very much -- voted for him a few times --and believe there's little doubt global warming is real (even if it isn't, there's no question that air pollution is unhealthy and that our reliance on foreign oil is forcing us down a very dangerous road -- why not deal with it instead of looking for silver linings that may or may not be there?).

That said, I was really disappointed in Gore's personal energy use and the lame excuse of buying energy credits. It reminds me of rich Northerners during American Civil War who could avoid conscription by paying someone to take their place in the military.

I we want a relatively famous person who is a longtime environmentalist who also practices what he preaches (and pokes fun at his dedication to the cause), how about Ed Begley Jr.?

Moore Not Less

emtiem wrote:

Barry Nelson wrote:

I am with Night on this one, IMO Gore is a propagandist. His movie An Inconveniant Truth was full of half truths and false facts. For example, he compares the amount of ice that melted in Greenland in 1953 to the amount that melted in 2004. Because more melted in 2004 than 1953 he says this is proof the ice in Greenland is melting at a fast pace. However, what he doesn't tell you is that 1953 happened to be a very warm year and 2004 a very cold year. On the other hand 1952 was a very cold year and if he compared 1952 to 2004 it would appear the earth was cooling not warming. This is just one example of how statistics can be manipulated to prove a point.

But if more ice melted in a cold year than in a warm year, doesn't that suggest that something is going a bit funny?

The average temperature this month in the UK has been three degrees centigrade higher than normal. In fact, the highest average April temperature since records began in the mid-17th century. Three degrees centigrade doesn't seem like much, but if the average temperature across the whole planet were to rise by just that amount then many coastal areas would disappear under water and millions of people worldwide would be forced to move inland.

Global warming is a fact. It's also a fact that the average temperature of the planet has been considerably higher on numerous occasions in the past than is the case now. Is this global warming part of a natural cycle or is it man made? I'm inclined to believe it is primarily man made. You cannot continually dump vast amounts of pollution into the air, sea, and underground, while at the same time destroying great areas of forestry without any consequence.

Barry Nelson

Moore Not Less wrote:

emtiem wrote:

Barry Nelson wrote:

I am with Night on this one, IMO Gore is a propagandist. His movie An Inconveniant Truth was full of half truths and false facts. For example, he compares the amount of ice that melted in Greenland in 1953 to the amount that melted in 2004. Because more melted in 2004 than 1953 he says this is proof the ice in Greenland is melting at a fast pace. However, what he doesn't tell you is that 1953 happened to be a very warm year and 2004 a very cold year. On the other hand 1952 was a very cold year and if he compared 1952 to 2004 it would appear the earth was cooling not warming. This is just one example of how statistics can be manipulated to prove a point.

But if more ice melted in a cold year than in a warm year, doesn't that suggest that something is going a bit funny?

The average temperature this month in the UK has been three degrees centigrade higher than normal. In fact, the highest average April temperature since records began in the mid-17th century. Three degrees centigrade doesn't seem like much, but if the average temperature across the whole planet were to rise by just that amount then many coastal areas would disappear under water and millions of people worldwide would be forced to move inland.

Global warming is a fact. It's also a fact that the average temperature of the planet has been considerably higher on numerous occasions in the past than is the case now. Is this global warming part of a natural cycle or is it man made? I'm inclined to believe it is primarily man made. You cannot continually dump vast amounts of pollution into the air, sea, and underground, while at the same time destroying great areas of forestry without any consequence.

This April has been the coldest April in 100 years in Chicago, it snowed a couple weeks ago. What does that mean? Nothing. One month fluctuations one way or the other means nothing, I remember in 2005 when the US had a record number of hurricanes and everyone said it was because of global warming, Last year we had zero hurricanes, so I guess it wasn't global warming.

highhopes

Barry Nelson wrote:

This April has been the coldest April in 100 years in Chicago, it snowed a couple weeks ago. What does that mean? Nothing. One month fluctuations one way or the other means nothing, I remember in 2005 when the US had a record number of hurricanes and everyone said it was because of global warming, Last year we had zero hurricanes, so I guess it wasn't global warming.

I think it's the intensity of the hurricanes, rather than their number, that is blamed on global warming. But I think those who deny global warming may be whistling past the graveyard. If we take steps against global warming, and it's a myth, then we've still come out ahead. That global warming is a myth doesn't make breathing smog any healthier. Doesn't it still make sense economically to conserve and look for other energy sources rather than continue exhausting our fossil fuels, the very thing that makes the modern world possible? It will run out sooner or later. Then what? If we're not careful we're going to wind up looking for the alternative in the dark, which doesn't strike me as the best time. Personally, I'm not concerned about doomsday weather scenarios as much as I'm concerned about having heat in the winter and the myriad other things that we've grown accustomed to over the years. And just as our ancestors fought over water, we will fight over oil. Oil shortages will cause huge disruptions in the social fabric. I like polar bears as much as the next guy, but we might be better off emphasizing the effect of profligate energy consumption on humans rather than the Earth.

Number24

Allmost all experts on climate agree on global warming. The fact that 3000 of them managed to agree on a very tough report for the UN (despite pressure from the US, Russia and China) makes this clear. I'm sure you can find some climate experts who disagree with them, but that's just it: You have to search for them. Allmost all of them agree with Gore.
It snowed her last month, but so what. the trend is indesputable, the earth is warming. The disident climate expert don't disagree on this, the few who are left argue it's not human made.
I admitt I was disapointed in Gore when it was revealed that he wasted so much CO2, but I still think the importance and force of his a message outweighs his fault by far.
So instead of attacking my choice with obscure scientists, can you tell me who your person of the year would be? (so I can counterattack:)))

Moore Not Less

Barry Nelson wrote:

This April has been the coldest April in 100 years in Chicago, it snowed a couple weeks ago. What does that mean? Nothing. One month fluctuations one way or the other means nothing,

Oh, I agree. You really need to look over a much longer time period to get a truer picture. And if you do that you will discover that the Earth's average temperature has risen quite dramatically in the last half century.

Nightshooter

Number24 wrote:

So instead of attacking my choice with obscure scientists, can you tell me who your person of the year would be? (so I can counterattack:)))

Paris Hilton, or Rosie O'Donell. ) ) ) not really

Barry Nelson

Number24 wrote:

Allmost all experts on climate agree on global warming. The fact that 3000 of them managed to agree on a very tough report for the UN (despite pressure from the US, Russia and China) makes this clear. I'm sure you can find some climate experts who disagree with them, but that's just it: You have to search for them. Allmost all of them agree with Gore.
It snowed her last month, but so what. the trend is indesputable, the earth is warming. The disident climate expert don't disagree on this, the few who are left argue it's not human made.
I admitt I was disapointed in Gore when it was revealed that he wasted so much CO2, but I still think the importance and force of his a message outweighs his fault by far.
So instead of attacking my choice with obscure scientists, can you tell me who your person of the year would be? (so I can counterattack:)))

I don't believe I attacked, in fact I said I respect your opinion. However, I have stated my opinion and I am now done.

As for person of the year, I believe we are talking about 2006 since 2007 is not half over. I would stick with my previous nomination of Warren Buffett who donated all of his billions to charity.

s96024

What happened to the millenium bug?

highhopes

OK -- I have a candidate we can all agree on:

Daniel Craig )

Just kidding ....

Number24

"Attack" was a poor choise of words, you are right about that (you had to be right about something:))) "Argued against" would be more better.

Barry Nelson

Took awhile to find this thread, but I want to thank the Brtish court system for agreeing with my point in this thread. Not that being right is important to me. )

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1012britain-gore12-ON.html

John Drake

Barry Nelson wrote:

Took awhile to find this thread, but I want to thank the Brtish court system for agreeing with my point in this thread. Not that being right is important to me. )

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1012britain-gore12-ON.html

So teachers now have to point the 9 inconvenient truths about An Inconvenient Truth. )

Dan Same

Al Gore has recently been jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I thibk it is an interesting (yet unsurprising) choice considering that Alfred Nobel's vision for the prize was much more specific that what it has turned to be. Nonetheless, the environment is important and I think he's a worthy winner. {[]