Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Oct 12 2007, 06:37 AM) [snapback]524500[/snapback]</div>

Way to go, Al!
I've always liked Al Gore -- and wanted him to win the first time he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination but didn't win -- when was it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Oct 12 2007, 06:37 AM) [snapback]524500[/snapback]</div>

My apologies to the former winners of this award - how irrelevant it has become....

Thoughts are they should change the name of this award to...

Nobel Prize for Political Correctness
Nobel Prize for Shaky Science
Nobel Prize for Those Seeking Fame and Fortune
Nobel Prize for Do as I say not as I do people (did he fly there yesterday on a private jet??)
Nobel Prize for Losers seeking Redemption


Still looking for what war or conflict he stopped?

I still would love for him to run for Pres - he has a better chance than the current crop of has-beens, wantabees, and shysters.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Oct 12 2007, 06:37 AM) [snapback]524500[/snapback]</div>

My only thought when I read that was, oh great, now we get to go through yet another round of character assassination on Gore. Krugman's column in todays NY Times pretty much sums it up for me, as to what's going to happen next. The Republican-affiliated media have the option to poison any debate they choose. I expect they'll do that here, and we'll see yet another good old fashioned smear campaign dressed up with 21st century tech. As opposed to any discussion of the actual reasons the Nobel committed awarded the prize. I wonder if the Nobel committee itself is off-limits, or if Fox/Limbaugh/etc will be going after them now too.

On the other hand, I think it was Tom Lehrer who said political satire died the moment Henry Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Anyway, good for Mr. Gore, and maybe we'll see some gracious acknowledgment of his contribution in this area from the Right. But I'm not holding my breath on that one.

 

Peace, not science? Sure sounds like a stretch to me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Oct 12 2007, 08:10 AM) [snapback]524518[/snapback]</div>

In my humble opinion the fact that they have in the free marketplace gathered tens of millions of listeners should "say" something to everyone.

I would posit the problem is the people who listen to moveon.org, dailykos - although there are those that truly believe that everyone is entitled to speak their mind and at the same time everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe --- like the Nobel Peace Prize being given to a guy flying the globe in a private jet screaming we are heating up the planet while dozens of conflicts and thousands of human beings are getting slaughtered on Planet Earth remain unsolved -- i wonder how many of them would have like to been around decades from now to see if Mr. Gore is right or not??

Retrospectively, I think this might be a better move than before by the "Nobels" - seeing how they have given their award to terrorists in the past. At least Al Gore is trying to do good and not killing anyone.

 

I knew the neocons would get projectile diarrhea over this.

I can't wait for the "opinion" of O'Reilly, Coulter and their ilk.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Oct 12 2007, 08:17 AM) [snapback]524522[/snapback]</div>

Obviously true science is not important - hence Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize for Global Warming

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 12 2007, 06:37 AM) [snapback]524509[/snapback]</div>

I think it's incredibly ignorant of you to say that this shows how the prize has become irrelevant. His work towards global warming has helped to inform the masses of the dangers of pollution. It's helped our country and many others to enact stricter pollution controls. Would it surprise you to know that, at one point in our history, many of our rivers were so polluted that they would routinely catch fire? That some cities suffered from so much air pollution that there were regular smog alerts? Through the work by people like Al these things are largely a thing of the past. The air we breath today is cleaner than that 20 years ago. Irregardless of the validity of the theory of global warming, his work has helped us to clean up our act. That alone is worth a Nobel.

As for your proposed renaming, what do you think people originally said about something as critical to your field as the MRI? shaky science? that the makers were seeking fame and fortune? Heck, they won a Nobel for it a few years ago - what war did they stop?

The Nobel Peace Prize isn't just about recognizing people that are able to directly stop a conflict or enforce a peace. It's about people who are capable of changing the world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 12 2007, 08:59 AM) [snapback]524577[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you about pollution controls and the like, I am just not sure how Al gore can receive credit for that. I have watched his movie several times and attended two seminars put on by his disciples. I think much still needs to be done to protect the environment to make sure our generations leave a legacy we can be proud of for future generations.

The first time I watched the movie i was somewhat taken back by the magnitude of what he was saying and what it would result in. The more times I watched the movie the more I have noticed the political undertones and the lack of science behind the message. I am not a scientist but I interact with some scientists on boards I sit on(I am sure you are surprised). Most seem to like the message of being concerned about the environment but most think the science is lacking and the tone of the message could end up backfiring in the end.

I for one think if the science was solid in his film he would have already thrown his hat into the ring for President. If he runs for president, the science will be overscrutinized and the results of the scrutiny will overshadow anything else he has to say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/...amp;oref=slogin

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 12 2007, 09:59 AM) [snapback]524577[/snapback]</div>

Second, perhaps they should change the name from Peace Prize to something more appropriate like Nobel Prize for Environmentalism?

 

One of many ironies. While Gore wins the prize, his mongo sized home sucks up tons of power / fossil fuel. It's kind of like the string of Arco / BP commercials airing all over the nation right now. Anyone else seen them? They're touting how much they are investing in the environment. Meanwhile, they (and other oilies) keep trying to disprove global warming, and throw 10's of millions at scientists, to 'Prove' global warming aint so. Put enough doubt into whether or not global warming is possible, and Arco can just keep chugging along, status quo. And of course, there are always tons of underpaid soul-less character-less scientific whores out there who are ready to make a buck.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Oct 12 2007, 09:32 AM) [snapback]524592[/snapback]</div>

Debunked elsewhere.

The reason Al Gore's energy bill is so high is because he and his wife chose to receive "green power," which costs them $4 more per 150 kilowatt-hours than their utility's regular plan. Furthermore, Al Gore's house has 20 rooms due to offices, security, etc.'

The Gores choose to raise their bill by over 50 percent in order to minimize carbon pollution.

http://newkai.com/mt/archives/2007/02/the_real_truth.html

http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm?...own&t=c1149

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Oct 12 2007, 09:32 AM) [snapback]524592[/snapback]</div>

Conserving is for the peasantry. Gore would be so much better off if he distanced himself from Hollywood. It makes me want to puke when I see a Hollywood type (lone exception is Ed Bagley jr)commenting about thier concern for the environment and how the rest of us need to be concerned. Ex Sheryl Crow's commenting about using one or two squares of toilet paper. From which wing of her 15,000 sq ft home did the comment emanate, truly pathetic.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Oct 12 2007, 09:38 AM) [snapback]524595[/snapback]</div>

First of all he owns more than one home. Also energy is energy and even if it is "green" if he was not using it, it could be offsetting someone elses energy usage. Where does the "green" energy come from? Does he have his own pv system? Geothermal? Wind farm? Not the last time I checked.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Oct 12 2007, 10:13 AM) [snapback]524584[/snapback]</div>

Below is an article concerning Al Gore's movie you reference above. The court decided that before showing the movie in schools a warning must be issued citing the movies inaccuracies etc. I believe the ruling as to whether it should be banned from schools is pending.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1811

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 12 2007, 09:51 AM) [snapback]524603[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you doc to an extent, but some of the measures I have read about would radically alter life especially in the western world. I for one want to keep cleaning up the environment and induce technological breakthroughs by using tax breaks, incentives,etc. A carbon tax imposed by the UN(or other like-minded measures) scare the hell out of me. Based on the way the US has handled most of its trade agreements over the last 30+years, we will pay most of the tax and receive the least benefit when all is said and done.

Isn't this in some ways the same as having a huge military buildup for a war which may or may not come. An Inconvenient Truth( a very dramatic movie) created a ground swell of initial concern in the general public(including myself), but as time marches forward there seems to be more disagreement about the extent of the climate change and certainly more disagreement about the degree which humans are involved.

 

Gore is not responsible for environmentalism, and he's not responsible directly for all or most, or maybe even a small fraction of some of the pollution restrictions that have come about. What he is responsible for is putting out a loud, clear and consistent message about reducing our dependence on oil. He has raised people's awareness, and by doing so, the net effects might include such things as:

1. A cleaner environment, better air and water for your children and their children.
2. A huge economic boost because all the new technology that's required will also require skilled workers to invent, design, and manufacture.
3. A huge benefit to global security. If technology could make all countries self-sufficient in terms of energy, all kinds of wars would be averted.

That might sound hopelessly optimistic of me, but I see Nobel awarding the Peace Prize to him for his work toward a safer, better world. Not because he's the only one to ever do it, or because he can claim all the progress as his own.

I don't think it's fair to compare it to a war that will never come, because even without global warming, there are many potential benefits.