Al Gore wins the Nobel Prize...

[icfireball]

Al Gore (one of the people on Apple's board of directors), won the Nobel Prize for his work with global warming. See the Apple frontpage: www.apple.com

http://images.apple.com/home/2007/images/gorepeaceprize_hero_20071012.gifhttp://images.apple.com/home/2007/images/gorepeaceprize_hero2_20071012.jpg

[Splinemodel]

I'm kind of dismayed with this, since it has nothing to do with peace.

[icfireball]

I'm kind of dismayed with this, since it has nothing to do with peace.

The Nobel Peace Prize isn't specifically about peace as regards to conflict, but rather humanity and doing something that benefits mankind.

[tonton]

I'm kind of dismayed with this, since it has nothing to do with peace.

Um... don't you think life with less pollution and fewer fears about potentially devastating weather changes and rising sea levels might be more peaceful?

[hardeeharhar]

I'm kind of dismayed with this, since it has nothing to do with peace.
what icfireball said.

Peace in this situation isn't end of conflict per se, it is serving humanity in a way that is overwhelmingly beneficial.

[Denton]

Not to mention that if the global climate does change in such a way that what was fertile land becomes desert, food may become more scarce. In addition, if there are no more glaciers and snow-packs decrease, there may be droughts in summers leading to water-shortages (and not only for crops, but for drinking water). Faced with situations such as this, how many wars will be fought over diminishing food and water supplies? This is highly speculative, of course, but it seems to me a little short-sighted to say that Gore does not deserve the "peace" prise for his work to raise awareness for global warming.

[Splinemodel]

Snore. . . But it's good to know what all of those camera crews and police cars were doing down the block this morning. I was wondering about that.

Seriously, though, if the Nobel peace prize is going out for a movement with so much talk and so little direction or action, then either the world is a boring place in 2007 or the Nobel Prize has become a waste of time. I'm inclined to believe the latter. Gore's platform for global warming is the most namby-pamby, fence-straddling exercise I've ever witnessed or read about. All of the measures proposed by Gore's bandwagon are band-aids on what they claim is a gushing artery. Moreover, the global warming debate has been going on for over a decade -- all Gore has done is turn it into an operation to sell carbon offsets. Clever, but disgusting.

Either start a movement by convincing the "green team" dedicates that they need to drastically change their lifestyles (they haven't), accept that new nuclear plants will have to be built, lobby for a "manhattan project" to explore alternative fuels and nuclear fusion, or do some (or all) of each. I'm not aware that any of these have been attempted. When you actually have results, and not just mutual mastubation among people who like to give awards to each other, then maybe your award was validated. Instead, this just pisses me off that there's a class of people out there who are lauded for doing very little, talking a big game, and taking massive personal profits in the process. It's hard for me to believe that he actually cares when his appearance fee is so high.

[Splinemodel]

Um... don't you think life with less pollution and fewer fears about potentially devastating weather changes and rising sea levels might be more peaceful?

I am myself a conservationist and, to some degree, an environmentalist. But nothing in Gore's plan suggests that today's trends will be affected much if we follow him. If we actually care about the environment, we have the power to take much more dramatic strides (see previous post). For what it's worth, carbon dioxide isn't even the dominant contributor as a greenhouse gas. I'm not so much upset that environmentalism was used as a platform for the prize, but it's just a travesty that it went to a guy who seems to be doing it all out of desire for personal profit.

[Aquafire]

I am myself a conservationist and, to some degree, an environmentalist. But nothing in Gore's plan suggests that today's trends will be affected much if we follow him. If we actually care about the environment, we have the power to take much more dramatic strides (see previous post). For what it's worth, carbon dioxide isn't even the dominant contributor as a greenhouse gas. I'm not so much upset that environmentalism was used as a platform for the prize, but it's just a travesty that it went to a guy who seems to be doing it all out of desire for personal profit.

Fully with you on this one Splinemodel.

Yes, and the whole Carbon trading system, (of which Gore is a BIG PLAYER and SHAREHOLDER is now going to profit a small number of elites, who like Gore, are pouring funds into such Carbon for profit trading schemes.

Turns out, when you look at the paper trail, he and a bunch of his cronies are not exactly humanitarians..

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/03/al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663

That's why I can't stand the BIG FAT HYPOCRITE.

Aquafire..

[neutrino23]

I'm kind of dismayed with this, since it has nothing to do with peace.

As millions of people are displaced by floods, drought and famine there could be horrific conflict caused by the imminent climate change. Al Gore has done more than anyone to publicize the issues of climate change. He hasn't just made a few speeches on television but has presented this countless times to groups of all sizes across the country. This is not some bandwagon he has come to recently but has been a life work for him.

I'm not acquainted with Al Gore's association with trading in carbon credits. I don't know if there is something to it or if this is just one more right wing smear. In any event, carbon credits will have little to no effect on preventing global warming. It will take massive coordinated effort to reduce generation of greenhouse gases to even slow down the approaching climate changes.

This will be a challenge to us on all levels. There will be no single solution. We'll see some increased use of nuclear though it will be very difficult to massively ramp up our use of nuclear power. It is facile to say we can solve this by building a huge number of nuclear plants. We will need coordinated action by all members of society and Al Gore has been pushing for this.

[palegolas]

First remember the prize is shared between two parties, Al Gore and his accomplishments, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I think that the committee is using its position to help highlighting issues that they think should be dealt with more seriously by the world's leaders. Al Gore has had the unusual success to have succeeded in spreading this important interest in the climate change to a LOT of people of the world. And he has had the power to have a Mac forum suddenly discuss climate change. That in itself truly is an accomplishment. And if the Nobel Price committee can help powering this wave of interest to the point that leading politicians start acting, that's a great thing for the world.

[spindler]

I'd write up a post but Splinemodel has said it perfectly about Al Gore and the situation. And I am a person who is ready for action on global warming.

Also, the term "peace" means lack of conflict, not just "doing something good in general". One word for that is "humanitarian". Peace is a much more specific word than humanitarian.

Maybe Jimi Hendrix could get a peace prize too since stoned people get into less fights.

[hardeeharhar]

Look at the historical recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize and honestly tell me that they have been given to people who ended conflict bar none.

It is imbecilic to judge a prize simply on its title.

[franksargent]

Snore. . . But it's good to know what all of those camera crews and police cars were doing down the block this morning. I was wondering about that.

Seriously, though, if the Nobel peace prize is going out for a movement with so much talk and so little direction or action, then either the world is a boring place in 2007 or the Nobel Prize has become a waste of time. I'm inclined to believe the latter. Gore's platform for global warming is the most namby-pamby, fence-straddling exercise I've ever witnessed or read about. All of the measures proposed by Gore's bandwagon are band-aids on what they claim is a gushing artery. Moreover, the global warming debate has been going on for over a decade -- all Gore has done is turn it into an operation to sell carbon offsets. Clever, but disgusting.

Either start a movement by convincing the "green team" dedicates that they need to drastically change their lifestyles (they haven't), accept that new nuclear plants will have to be built, lobby for a "manhattan project" to explore alternative fuels and nuclear fusion, or do some (or all) of each. I'm not aware that any of these have been attempted. When you actually have results, and not just mutual mastubation among people who like to give awards to each other, then maybe your award was validated. Instead, this just pisses me off that there's a class of people out there who are lauded for doing very little, talking a big game, and taking massive personal profits in the process. It's hard for me to believe that he actually cares when his appearance fee is so high.

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/fs8/300W/i/2005/332/4/d/Don_t_be_an_asshat__by_robert.jpg

[franksargent]

Fully with you on this one Splinemodel.

Yes, and the whole Carbon trading system, (of which Gore is a BIG PLAYER and SHAREHOLDER is now going to profit a small number of elites, who like Gore, are pouring funds into such Carbon for profit trading schemes.

Turns out, when you look at the paper trail, he and a bunch of his cronies are not exactly humanitarians..

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/03/al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663

That's why I can't stand the BIG FAT HYPOCRITE.

Aquafire..

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/fs8/300W/i/2005/332/4/d/Don_t_be_an_asshat__by_robert.jpg

[franksargent]

I'd write up a post but Splinemodel has said it perfectly about Al Gore and the situation. And I am a person who is ready for action on global warming.

Also, the term "peace" means lack of conflict, not just "doing something good in general". One word for that is "humanitarian". Peace is a much more specific word than humanitarian.

Maybe Jimi Hendrix could get a peace prize too since stoned people get into less fights.

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/fs8/300W/i/2005/332/4/d/Don_t_be_an_asshat__by_robert.jpg

[Mystic]

Now will he PLEASE just go away???

[ThinkingDifferent]

The Nobel Peace Prize isn't specifically about peace as regards to conflict, but rather humanity and doing something that benefits mankind.

The Internet that he created has been a huge benefit to mankind.

[Jubelum]

Yea... funny he didn't mention his creation of the Internets in his speech. Weird. :err:

[franksargent]

Yea... funny he didn't mention his creation of the Internets in his speech. Weird. :err:

[A]s the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept.

Al Gore's Internets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_controversies#Internet)

The part underlined, does that sound even vaguely familiar, with respect to AGW? D'oh! :lol:

I guess when you trap your minds within self imposed ideological black holes, there's no escaping your self imposed imprisonment. :\

But his father DID invent the Interstates:

http://www.pseudoprime.com/uploaded_images/Photo_061407_001-710859.jpg

[Jubelum]

But his father DID invent the Interstates:



Sure, never mind this:
http://www.destination360.com/europe/germany/images/s/germany-autobahn.jpg

:D

Invent means to create something new. Advocating spending is not the same as "inventing."

[tonton]

Advocating spending is not the same as "inventing."

Neither is "creating".

Whereas advocating spending can definitely mean "taking the initiative in creating".

[mydo]

I don't know why Gore won this. Other than the Committee wanting to take another swipe at Bush. Which is all well and good. But they are robing peter to pay paul. Imagine if they monks in Burma had won this year? Now that would have been something!

Who's next? Cindy Sheehan?

[mydo]

ShawnJ I had at least 6 or 7 sentences there and quote one? You'll make an excellent lawyer.

[Flounder]

ShawnJ I had at least 6 or 7 sentences there and quote one? You'll make an excellent lawyer.

Well, technically, sentences 1 through 4 should have all been one sentence. :p

[mydo]

Well, technically, sentences 1 through 4 should have all been one sentence. :p

That's pretty funny. You're right. I think I was drinking that night.

[mydo]

My response was relevant to your question.

You asked why Gore won the award, and I responded with the committee's stated reasons for why they chose him for the award.

ShawnJ you're a lawyer in training. Is there ever a time when a group states their reason for something but people still don't know why they did it? What are the possible reasons for that?

[tonton]

ShawnJ you're a lawyer in training. Is there ever a time when a group states their reason for something but people still don't know why they did it? What are the possible reasons for that?

Because people don't believe them or they deny that the reason is valid.

I think the Nobel Committee's reason is valid. On the other hand, SDW and Trumptman believe the Bush Administration's reasons for invading Iraq (even though those reasons kept changing) were valid.

[talksense101]

It is appalling that you would bad mouth the Nobel Prize because it was given to someone you dislike. If Gore is a such a piece of crap and he was able to get the prize, why don't the rest of the millionaires and billionaires in the world take turns in getting the damn prize every year?

Start calling everyone who doesn't fit into your model of the world an enemy and label anyone who is friendly with them as an axis of evil... Oh wait, GWB already did that.

Whatever happened to people having an objective view on life without leaning to extremes? :mad:

[mydo]

I have no idea why you still don't understand why Gore won the award.

Why don't you tell us since we can't read your mind?

Sentence fragment #4 and 5. You're going to be either the worst or the best lawyer ever.

[tonton]

1. I will ignore your continued personal attacks as clear violations of the posting guidelines.

2. And you're clearly not making a good faith effort to engage in conversation here otherwise.

How do "sentence fragments 4 and 5" (those are your words) undermine the committee's reasons for awarding Al Gore the prize? I'm not sure how the logic of "robing [sic] peter to pay paul" is, you know, all that self-evident in that context. Can you, uh, elaborate? The Burmese monks point may be decent, but you don't actually argue anything beyond the conclusion that they should have won. Ok?

We should have had this discussion when Arafat won the award... :wow:

[trumptman]

1. I will ignore your continued personal attacks as clear violations of the posting guidelines.

2. And you're clearly not making a good faith effort to engage in conversation here otherwise.

How do "sentence fragments 4 and 5" (those are your words) undermine the committee's reasons for awarding Al Gore the prize? I'm not sure how the logic of "robing [sic] peter to pay paul" is, you know, all that self-evident in that context. Can you, uh, elaborate? The Burmese monks point may be decent, but you don't actually argue anything beyond the conclusion that they should have won. Ok?

If complaining about how someone has typed something down while adding nothing to the thread were an ad-hom, I know a certain kettle that would already be perma-banned.

Nick

[trumptman]

Because people don't believe them or they deny that the reason is valid.

I think the Nobel Committee's reason is valid. On the other hand, SDW and Trumptman believe the Bush Administration's reasons for invading Iraq (even though those reasons kept changing) were valid.

I'm sorry but you are using Trumptman without his consent. I haven't even participated in this thread. Please cease and desist immediately and remit royalties via my Paypal account. Your use in no manner constitutes satire and as such falls clearly is an attempt to harass and defame.:lol:

I charge for the pre-rants, I should at least be participating in the thread before you rail against my presupposed position.

Nick

[trumptman]

We should have had this discussion when Arafat won the award... :wow:

Some of us did. However there instead of being labeled delusional defilers of the planet who desire to kill, maim and harm all poor people because we refuse to justify private jets and carbon trading, we were labeled as delusional supporters of Israel who hate Islam and desire to subjugate the entire region to the interests of the United States.

In each case the parties who supported the nomination claimed ulterior motives with regard to leveling any criticism of the award and party to whom it was given because CLEARLY you could never have true cause for criticizing them.:no:

Hope that clears that up for you.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

1994

The prize was awarded jointly to:

YASSER ARAFAT , Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, President of the Palestinian National Authority.

SHIMON PERES , Foreign Minister of Israel.

YITZHAK RABIN , Prime Minister of Israel.

for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East.

Good, bad...who gives a toss...anyway, Arafat's was stolen (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813047962&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter).

[mydo]

1. I will ignore your continued personal attacks as clear violations of the posting guidelines.

2. And you're clearly not making a good faith effort to engage in conversation here otherwise.

How do "sentence fragments 4 and 5" (those are your words) undermine the committee's reasons for awarding Al Gore the prize? I'm not sure how the logic of "robing [sic] peter to pay paul" is, you know, all that self-evident in that context. Can you, uh, elaborate? The Burmese monks point may be decent, but you don't actually argue anything beyond the conclusion that they should have won. Ok?

Stiff upper lip ShawnJ. That's hardly a personal attack.

IMO the committee gave it to gore to stick their thumb in bush's eye which they already did the previous year via Carter who had actually earned it. They wasted their opportunity to give it to a group that is acting for peace in today's world. Maybe in the future were Kevin Costner has gills and rides a pontoon boat Gore will be a hero for peace but in this world we have more tangible heroes that should have won. E.g. Monks, people of Lebanon, sundry democracy advocates in Russia, .... but GORE? :no:

So the committee robed (sic) peace to pay politics.

[Flounder]

sundry democracy advocates in Russia

I don't know about the specific advocates of which you speak, but is being a democracy advocate particularly directly related to peace? I think you could make a pretty good argument that global warming advocacy is at least as, and possibly more, related to peace (as ShawnJ and neutrino have ably pointed out earlier in this thread) than advocating democracy.

Interestingly, the opening keynote speech at the conference I attended today discussed how global warming and adapting to its consequences is perhaps starting to become, and will almost certainly increasingly become, a critical part of the duty of the public health community.

[bsenka]

I didn't know there was a Nobel Prize for propaganda.

[mydo]

I don't know about the specific advocates of which you speak, but is being a democracy advocate particularly directly related to peace? ....

If you have to ask ....

[mydo]

Gore won the award precisely for acting to prevent anything tangible from occurring.

Well he hasn't done anything yet. If he fails should they take the prize away or does he get an A for effort?

You can disagree with the scale of the planetary emergency and the resulting human consequences we face, but if those premises are true,

I don't disagree with any of it.

the committee is justified in awarding Gore the prize.

Maybe. Gore might be a failure. I hope not.

The scientific evidence points toward supporting Gore's view of the climate change crisis, and I think the human consequences the committee points to are worth acting on now to prevent.

Gore's view is only the regurgitation of actual experts. Only repackaged in movie format for mass consumption.

That's not to say your examples don't deserve consideration, but I don't think I support the view that actions promoting peace can't be prospective in nature (or if they can be, that they don't deserve acknowledgment or consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize).

I might be able to argue that the cause of global warning is better enhanced by those supporting peace and democracy on the ground in todays world. If Putin takes over Russia you can kiss reductions in CO2 there goodbye.


For me the Gore prize was a big "WTF?":???: People around the world are standing in front of guns for the cause of peace and democracy they give it to Gore? WTF?

[icfireball]

I didn't know there was a Nobel Prize for propaganda.

Anybody who thinks Global Warming (more appropriately named Climate Change) is propaganda is a arrogant, incompetent, idiot.

Tell me, if Global Warming is for propaganda, why is Gore so invested in the issue? Propaganda is "information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view"
At one time, someone might argue (probably unsuccessfully) that Al Gore was using Global Warming as as a sources of propaganda. But Gore is no longer political, so why motive would Gore have to spew "propaganda."

Would you like to know what propaganda is? Propaganda is George Bush telling the American people that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or that they are linked to Al Qaeda. Propaganda is telling the American people that social security is collapsing and the only way to solve it is privatization.

Get real. Are you really going to deny the issue of Global Warming because you're not brave enough to face the facts or your too spoiled that you don't want to break any little bit of your pampered existence? The world's children and their children will have to deal with Global Warming, which is sure to cause pain and suffering... possibly extinction and destroying a planet.

How would you like it if I took a baseball bat to your Mac, or I tortured and destroyed your family? The Earth is and contains everything you value most. Stop being so goddamn selfish and arrogant.

[bsenka]

Anybody who thinks Global Warming (more appropriately named Climate Change) is propaganda is a arrogant, incompetent, idiot.

Climate Change is not propaganda, climate is changing all the time. Catastrophic global warming, with human CO2 emissions as it's direct cause, THAT is propaganda.

Tell me, if Global Warming is for propaganda, why is Gore so invested in the issue? Propaganda is "information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view"
At one time, someone might argue (probably unsuccessfully) that Al Gore was using Global Warming as as a sources of propaganda. But Gore is no longer political, so why motive would Gore have to spew "propaganda."

He's selling books, movies, speaking tours, and is heavily invested in carbon trading companies. Follow the money.


Would you like to know what propaganda is? Propaganda is George Bush telling the American people that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or that they are linked to Al Qaeda. Propaganda is telling the American people that social security is collapsing and the only way to solve it is privatization.

I agree, all of that is ALSO propaganda.


Get real. Are you really going to deny the issue of Global Warming because you're not brave enough to face the facts or your too spoiled that you don't want to break any little bit of your pampered existence? The world's children and their children will have to deal with Global Warming, which is sure to cause pain and suffering... possibly extinction and destroying a planet.

If any of that was actually happening, you might have a point. Considering that it's NOT, you don't.


How would you like it if I took a baseball bat to your Mac, or I tortured and destroyed your family? The Earth is and contains everything you value most. Stop being so goddamn selfish and arrogant.

I see. Because I don't like it when people lie to me, that makes me selfish. Right.

[tonton]

I see. Because I don't like it when people lie to me, that makes me selfish. Right.

So Gore is lying to you?

You honestly believe he doesn't believe what he preaches and that it's all fabricated so that he can sell books and speaking engagements?

No. Actually, I believe you agree that Gore believes in what he says (that global warming can be slowed by human action), and that it's simply a difference of opinion from yours.

So when you say he's lying... it's a lie.

And I don't like it when people lie to me. I like it even less when people lie to the public.

[tonton]

Considering that it's NOT, you don't.

Wow. You must be a REAL SMART guy to have such clear knowledge and be more informed than the majority of environmental scientists. Or you're stating your opinion as fact.

[bsenka]

You honestly believe he doesn't believe what he preaches and that it's all fabricated so that he can sell books and speaking engagements?

Of course he doesn't believe it. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

[bsenka]

Wow. You must be a REAL SMART guy to have such clear knowledge and be more informed than the majority of environmental scientists.

There are plenty of climate scientists who disagree with Gore. Those who do claim to agree are also just in it for the money; the research grants.

[Jubelum]

OK, let's see... I'll take two carbon credits, ten million tons of water vapor, fifty millennia of ice-core climate cycles, a couple of trillion watts of solar output and all the climate change "deniers" you can fit in the bag. I guess that'll do it.

I'm sorry, this is a religious discussion. Never an end to those, ya know. You either believe in Jesus, or you don't. You either believe in man made GW, or you don't. Occasionally there are converts, after long, arduous, and dogmatic indoctrination. The parallels are frightening, though it is entertaining to watch each side prop up their "disciples" and berate the "deniers." :err: