Advertisement

Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

topic posted Fri, October 12, 2007 - 9:20 AM by  Unsubscribed
Share/Save/Bookmark
Just look at your local paper
posted by:
Unsubscribed
Advertisement
  • Unsu...
     

    • C'mon, what does the Nobel committee know about science? We all know it is all just a political ploy.

      -troy
      • Well obviously the "Nobel Peace prize" is no longer just about "peace" anymore. maybe they should change the name to the "Nobel Peace and Justice prize", or "Nobel Human Service prize" or something like that.
        • Ron, if you bothered to pay the SLIGHTEST bit of atention, you'd know that the consequences of global warming - increases in drought, famine, natural disasters such as hurricanes - cause the kind of poverty, desparation for resources, and massive population shifts that lead to conflict and out and out war.

          By drawing so much attention to the problem of human-induced climate change, Gore is not just trying to stop further damage to the environment but also prevent the wars that damage will cause.

          Don't accept that? Maybe you should be reminded of a report by our very own Pentagon - hardly a leftist organization, I hope you'll agree - a few years ago. You can look at the whole thing here:

          http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Jox2wUgFoc0J:www.astr.ua.edu/white/images...k&cd=30&gl=us

          Here's a a particularly relevant paragraph from the intro:

          As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, cleanwater, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift andthe goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor.


          So yeah, the Peace Prize is pretty damn appropriate.
          • By thet stretched reasoning, anything qualifies for the Nobel Peace prize. If population movements may lead to conflict, then perhaps the anti-illigal immigration folks should be nominated for the Nobel Peace price. At least the anti illegal folks are dealing with circumstances now, not something that MAY happen (e.g. population shifts resulting from global warming) decades in the future.
          • Unsu...
             
            **************Ron, if you bothered to pay the SLIGHTEST bit of atention, *****************

            Yah Ron the "SLIGHTEST" With caps no less.
            Ha Ha HA Ha Ha Ha Ha He cracks me up I tell ya.
            I can hear his voice lilting up and down Ha Ha Ha
        • <<Well obviously the "Nobel Peace prize" is no longer just about "peace" anymore.

          The Nobel Prize has never been just about peace, this is why they have had prizes for Chemistry and Physics since the prize was first created.
          • that's why those are called "the nobel prize for literature" and "the nobel prize for physics"....he's speaking specifically of the nobel PEACE prize....so in fact, it isn't about creating peace anymore...
            • People assume that the word peace only applies to war, but that is not the case. Peace is defined as a state of harmony, the absence of hostility. Global Warming has the possibility for creating a hostile environment for humans and animal species. Peace can also describe a relationship between any parties characterized by respect, justice, and goodwill.
          • "The Nobel Prize has never been just about peace, this is why they have had prizes for Chemistry and Physics since the prize was first created."

            Jeff, I like you, but that was rather facile. They call the prize for chemistry the Nobel prize for chemistry and the one for physics the Nobel prize for physics. It's not the Nobel Peace prize for physics. The one for peace is supposed to be for peace.
            • Does the word peace only apply to states of war?
              • of course not...but how does creating a film that has some controversy over whether the evidence is correct or not or whether it's even too soon to know make it worthy of something that has been bestowed upon people like MLK, Gandhi and the Dali Lhama?
                • "that has been bestowed upon people like MLK, Gandhi and the Dali Lhama?"

                  Come on, know your history..
                  Gandhi never won the Nobel peace prize,
                  Although he was nominated 4 times..


                  Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate
                  by Øyvind Tønnesson
                  Nobelprize.org Peace Editor, 1998-2000
                  1 December 1999
                  introduction

                  Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948) has become the strongest symbol of non-violence in the 20th century. It is widely held – in retrospect – that the Indian national leader should have been the very man to be selected for the Nobel Peace Prize. He was nominated several times, but was never awarded the prize. Why?

                  These questions have been asked frequently: Was the horizon of the Norwegian Nobel Committee too narrow? Were the committee members unable to appreciate the struggle for freedom among non-European peoples?" Or were the Norwegian committee members perhaps afraid to make a prize award which might be detrimental to the relationship between their own country and Great Britain?
                  nobelprize.org/nobel_priz.../index.html
                • <<of course not...but how does creating a film that has some controversy over whether the evidence is correct or not or whether it's even too soon to know make it worthy of something that has been bestowed upon people like MLK, Gandhi and the Dali Lhama?

                  The body of the film is correct, it is more controversial because of the paid for scientists by lobbyists for the oil companies injecting doubt. Global warming is reality, and the vast bulk of scientists agree that humans are contributing. The Bush administration itself is even having to start recognizing this. The Nobel Peace prize is not awarded just for resolution of conflict, but also for contributions toward peaceful endeavers in process. This is why the Nobel Prize is sometimes controversial, those working toward peaceful endeavors do not always come through in the end, ie Arafat for one example.

                  And think about this Sets..... if Gore is right.....and if his works spur the world to get a handle on climate change...... history will revere him like Gandhi for having played a hand in humankind and our ecosystems entire future. If not, so be it... He would not be the first Nobel Prize winner that was not ultimately recognized as Dali Lhama like figure by history.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Um......I don't think that this guy is a crackpot or a big-oil stooge.

                    www.smh.com.au/news/envir...238792.html
                    • Although Gray arguments seem complex, his theories are full of easy to understand mistakes....

                      This is a debunking from Realclimate.
                      The best popular scientific site on climate change..
                      Check out the awards from scientific american and the Guardian on the right..


                      26 April 2006
                      Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming
                      www.realclimate.org/index.ph...y-on-agw/

                      Some quotes:

                      "The THC is undoubtedly important to climate, because it transports heat from one place to another. However it cannot do magical things. It cannot created energy out of thin air (or thick water), nor can it make energy mysteriously disappear. Thus, Gray's statement that "The average THC circulation cools the ocean by about 3 W/m2" is a scientific absurdity. "
                      THC=Thermohaline circulation
                      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ther...irculation


                      "Claim: Evaporation changes cause global warming, hurricane cycles, etc.

                      Gray's grand answer to the riddle of global warming is evaporation, presumably modulated by changes in the THC. Again, Gray simply doesn't seem to understand energy conservation. Evaporation does not create heat; it does not add any heat to the climate system or take it away. It is an energy transfer that moves heat from a moist surface (like the ocean's) into the atmosphere. That severely constrains what evaporation changes can do to climate. In contrast, changes in CO2 concentration affect the top of atmosphere radiation budget directly, and change the rate at which the whole climate system loses energy. "
                    • <<Um......I don't think that this guy is a crackpot or a big-oil stooge.

                      You are always going to have legitimate scientists that disagree, that is nothing new and is why I said "the vast majority of scientists", not ALL scientists.
  • Unsu...
     
    Lets see not they have recently awarded it to
    A bigoted racist from Georgia
    A a bigoted racist terrorist from the middle east
    and now to a
    a lying sack of shit named BoZo.

    He's in fine company.

    • This post was deleted by TOU (Terms of Use)
    • " Lets see not they have recently awarded it to
      A a bigoted racist terrorist from the middle east "

      Be fair, they did show regrets for that one..

      Nobel's regrets on Peres award
      Friday, 5 April, 2002,

      Members of the Norwegian committee that awards the annual Nobel Peace Prize have launched an unprecedented verbal assault on Israeli Foreign Minister and Nobel peace laureate Shimon Peres.

      Mr Peres accepted the peace prize jointly with the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israel's late prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, in 1994.

      "Yes, I wish it was possible that we could recall the prize"
      Nobel committee member Hanna Kvanmo

      In an interview with a Norwegian newspaper, committee members said they regretted that Mr Peres' prize could not be recalled because, as a member of the Israeli cabinet, he had not acted to prevent Israel's re-occupation of Palestinian territory.

      One member said Mr Peres had not lived up to the ideals he expressed when he accepted the prize.

      "What is happening today in Palestine is grotesque and unbelievable," said Hanna Kvanmo.

      "Peres is responsible, as part of the government. He has expressed his agreement with what [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon is doing," she said.

      If Arafat were killed by Israel, Peres could "share in the blame"

      "If he had not agreed with Sharon, then he would have withdrawn from the government."

      Oslo Bishop Gunnar Stalsett, a committee member for the past eight years, describes as "absurd" what he sees as the involvement of a Nobel laureate in human rights abuses.

      Other committee members argue that the Israeli government's actions in general and Mr Peres' involvement in particular are threatening to bring the prize into disrepute.
      news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...1912953.stm
      • Unsu...
         
        *********"Yes, I wish it was possible that we could recall the prize"
        Nobel committee member Hanna Kvanmo ***************


        Well Gee Golly martha~!! You'd a thunk they'd a looked afore they leaped.

        Just like today. They are purely political.
        • Unsu...
           
          The Nobel prize,
          Jimmy "the Nut Case" Cater won one too.
          Next year there planning on giving it to a fruit fly....

          Fat Al is still full of crap,
          Art Brut
          • Jimmy Carter has spent DECADES in efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development. Sure sounds like the kind of person that deserves the peace prize no matter what you think of his Presidency.
            • Unsu...
               
              During the Carter years,,, more people had homes fore-closed on than any other time since the great depression.
              Interest rate where "DOUBLE DIGIT" bank loans with interest as high as 24%
              So considering how many people he put out of their homes, he should be doing something to make-up for it.

              His inept presidency gave way to Reagan, Bush, --------

              Cater is an idiot.

              Art Brut
              • <<During the Carter years,,, more people had homes fore-closed on than any other time since the great depression.

                Bush is working his way toward that record, have you payed attention to all the current foreclosures? And as I said, regardless of what you think of his Presidency, he has done a lot of good in the world.

                <<he should be doing something to make-up for it.

                He is..... Ever heard of Habitat For Humanity?

                In addition, if Carter should take the blame for the economy then, Bush should take blame for the housing market, and Clinton should get credit for the many years of economic prosperity. Are you prepared to be balanced in your assessment of Presidents and the economy they preside over? Is the economy ALL in the Presidents hands? Or are there other mitigating factors? Because if your assessment is that Carter is an idiot, then Clinton must be BRILLIANT.
                • "Bush is working his way toward that record,"

                  The subprime debacle is Bush's fault? How?
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Ron, it is the Republicans who live by the mantra that "Regulation is BAD!!". At every chance they decry government regulation.

                    Well, guess what. It is the lack of regulation that caused the subprime crisis. Companies should have never been allowed to use these predatory lending practices.

                    -troy
                    • "Well, guess what. It is the lack of regulation that caused the subprime crisis. Companies should have never been allowed to use these predatory lending practices. "

                      And that's Bush's fault how?

                      • He, like all Republicans, try to reduce government regulation at every turn so the Republican cooperate donors can make more money at the expense of American's safety, health, and financial security.

                        Bankers, lenders and credit companies give millions to the Republicans, including Bush, to insure nobody gets in their way of pushing predatory lending schemes on Americans.

                        -troy
                      • "Well, guess what. It is the lack of regulation that caused the subprime crisis. Companies should have never been allowed to use these predatory lending practices. "
                        And that's Bush's fault how?"

                        Major guilt goes to Greenspan and Bernanke..
                        Printing money like crazy, the worst monetary policy ever..

                        Bush could have introduced stricter lending rules..he did not..
                        His mounting debt policy did not help either..
                        So Bush certainly shares part of the blame..

                        He stole the elections from Gore but he can not steal his Nobel prize..
                        No Nobel price price for Bush..ever..I am sure..
                        • "Bush could have introduced stricter lending rules"

                          That's Congress' job, not the president's.

                          "He stole the elections from Gore"

                          You have that backward. Gore tried to steal the election from Bush, with the help of Democratic partisans on the Florida Supreme Court.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    <<The subprime debacle is Bush's fault? How?

                    I never said it was. I was asking Art to be balanced in his approach to housing blame. If he is going to blame Carter for what happened in the 70s, he should blame Bush for what is happening now.
                    • "I never said it was. I was asking Art to be balanced in his approach to housing blame. If he is going to blame Carter for what happened in the 70s, he should blame Bush for what is happening now."

                      Fair enough. Reasonable as always Jeff.
        • I think wikipedia answers Cliffs questions in regards to questionable people that have won the prize.

          "Since the Prize can be given to individuals involved in ongoing peace processes, some of the awards now appear, with hindsight, questionable, particularly when those processes failed to bear lasting fruit. For example, the awards given to Theodore Roosevelt, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat, Lê Ðức Thọ, and Henry Kissinger were particularly controversial and criticized; the latter prompted two dissenting Committee members to resign.[6]"
      • To say that Peres' should have been recalled but not Arafat's speaks volumes for the political orientation of this group.
        • I just like reading all the posts describing how "great" Jimmy Carter is/was, and how Al Gore is supremely deserving of a Nobel Prize.

          Funny stuff!

          The Nobel "Peace" prize has been a political instrument since it's creation. It's recipients are about as deserving as Hillary Clinton was for her spoken word Grammy.

          • Global warming has the potential of devastating existing geo-political borders. Even the Pentagon has said that Global Warming could lead to endless wars in the near future.

            Keeping the world stable is key to peace. That is what Gore is trying to do.

            Sure, Jimmy Carter may not have been the best president, but how dare you question is dedication to peace?

            -troy
        • "To say that Peres' should have been recalled but not Arafat's speaks volumes for the political orientation of this group."

          Did you read article?
          The Sharon/Peres government threatened to kill Arafat..
          Not the other way around.
          Would have been only murder of a peace prize winner by another peace prize winner..
          No wonder the Nobel committee was not amused..
          This was the only occassion that the nobel price committee ever showed regret about their choice..
  • This is a joke. Gore gets it for a powerpoint presentation? WTF?

    Nobel Peace Prize is a total boob prize. Hey why not give it to Kissinger again? Or Condi?

    Gore = war hawk complicit in killing 500,000 Iraqi children, neoliberal imperialist, and overall asshole.
    • "Gore gets it for a powerpoint presentation? WTF?"

      I can relate somewhat to that CDub..

      While thousands of scientist worked for decades to deliver us the solid proof of human induced global warming..
      Gore comes along and steals the show..
      I must admit i also had these feelings for a while..

      But we do not have time for jealousy in climate science world..
      The members of the IPCC and other climate scientist are just glad that the topic finally gets the attention it deserves..
      For a major part ..thanks to Gore..
      He did his study, he is famous and he knows how to present the case..
      Well done Al..Congratulations..


      Comment: how science silenced the sceptics
      Times Online
      October 12, 2007
      Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter

      The award of a Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and climate change scientists illustrates just how far the environmental movement has come in winning the global warming argument.

      Ten years ago the idea that the world was warming up, with potentially disastrous consequences, was still hugely contested.

      People who installed energy-saving lightbulbs or put on another jumper instead of turning up the thermostat were dismissed as part of the tree-hugging fringe movement.

      But the science of climate change has advanced enormously in the past decade and gradually the sceptics have been silenced as their objections were answered.
      Related Links
      Sceptics still exist, and many of them have good points to make, but it is they who have been pushed to the fringe of political and scientific debate.

      The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations scientific body which shares the Nobel prize with Mr Gore, can justly claim much of the credit for bringing climate change science in from the cold.

      It publishes assessments of the body of evidence for climate change every few years. This year it published its fourth comprehensive assessments.

      Each time the IPCC sits down to consider the solidity of hundreds of pieces of research its conclusions are subjected to bot scientific and political scrutiny before they can be published.

      Many scientists find this a frustrating process and several briefly walked out this year when political delegates objected to some of what they wanted to say.

      But in many ways it is this process of scrutiny that has allowed the IPCC’s pronouncements to have such an impact. Every piece of evidence it presents publicly, every statement it makes has been assessed rigorously.

      If it errs at all, it errs on the side of caution and by being able so convincingly to shrug off accusations of exaggeration that it has won credibility for itself and its findings.

      Mr Gore isn’t quite so constrained. In An Inconvenient Truth he was able to present a pont of view, just as the makers of The Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4 did to the delight of sceptics.

      But his point of view was broadly sustained by the science as the High Court in London recognised this week despite a judge identifying nine errors within the Oscar-winning documentary. Entertaining though the judge’s criticisms were, Mr Justice Burton made it clear that the essential message of An Inconvenient Truth was backed up by a wealth of science.

      It is that reliance on science that has made the documentary such a worldwide success and made Mr Gore a hero of the environmental movement.

      Where scientists have endeavoured to understand the nature, extent and likely consequences of climate change, Mr Gore has brought their conclusions into everyday conversation.
      www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/glo...5371.ece
      • Why didn't they award him the Nobel Prize for science? Because his Science, and the agenda driven scientists at the U.N. cannot stand up to real peer review. Scientific theory that can't or won't submit to peer review or debate isn't worth discussing. The Peace prize is awarded to whatever cause célèbre happens to be getting headlines.

        Exhibiting blind faith, attacking anyone who happens to disagree and refusing to engage in civil debate are all characteristics of zealotry.

        600 years ago there was consensus that the world was flat. Leading scientists of the day, world leaders, and the church all espoused that belief and labeled anyone who disagreed with them a heretic.

        It's nice to see some things never change.
        • those scientists, with all their brilliance and dedication, weren't being heard by almost anyone but a handful of environmentalists.

          al gore exposed their work to the world, with perhaps the biggest environmental PR campaign in the history of the world.

          not with a powerpoint alone, but by personally devoting his whole life to traveling around the world and using his own fame to stop global warming - i'm guessing you never read earth in the balance bc you're not giving him the credit he is due - though i suppose the nobel committee does appreciate what gore has done with his life recently

          ..i bet the scientists were smart enough to figure out why they're sharing the award with him.
          • I'm pretty sure that "Earth in the Balance" is not a peer reviewed text. It's not science, and Al Gore isn't a scientist.

            A well executed PR campaign doesn't equate to good science.
            • <<I'm pretty sure that "Earth in the Balance" is not a peer reviewed text. It's not science, and Al Gore isn't a scientist.

              Did he ever claim to be a scientist? Did Al Gore ever present Earth in the Balance as a scientific paper that would require peer review? Have you ever read Earth in the Balance? the book is an analysis an opinion of where humanity has gone wrong, ranging across history, politics, science, economics, psychology, philosophy, and religion AND the environment.

              The simple fact remains that we are in the biggest extinction period since the dinosaurs, this is a catastrophe' that is happening at an unprecidented rate and is man made even without global warming. The quality of our air and our water is degrading rapidly, plant and animal species are dying so quickly we have not even catalogued many of them......losing possible cures for disease and human suffering.

Recent topics in "! * POLITICS * !"