or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Al Gore wins the Nobel Prize...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Al Gore wins the Nobel Prize...

post #1 of 54
Thread Starter 
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

post #2 of 54
I'm kind of dismayed with this, since it has nothing to do with peace.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #3 of 54
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

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.
post #4 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

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?
post #5 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

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.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #6 of 54
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.
post #7 of 54
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.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #8 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #9 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

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/noe...a-media-s-help

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

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

Aquafire..
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
There are 3 types of people in the world.

Those who count.

&

Those who can't.
Reply
post #10 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

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.
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Reply
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Reply
post #11 of 54
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.
post #12 of 54
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.
post #13 of 54
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.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #14 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

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.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #15 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquafire View Post

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/noe...a-media-s-help

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

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

Aquafire..

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #16 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

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.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #17 of 54
Now will he PLEASE just go away???
post #18 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

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.
post #19 of 54
Yea... funny he didn't mention his creation of the Internets in his speech. Weird.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #20 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

But nothing in Gore's plan suggests that today's trends will be affected much if we follow him.

On what grounds?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

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.

On what grounds?

This charge is meritless. How does a speaking fee render completely insincere his environmental advocacy? From a libertarian, that notion by itself seems suspect, but that point aside, if the insincerity of his advocacy were as conclusive as you make it appear, wouldn't environmental groups also criticize him on these grounds? You're alleging by implication a conspiracy of sorts to keep silent that line of criticism against Gore. To me that seems like a stretch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

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.

I believe you are in the minority of people if you think Al Gore has "done very little." And if his advocacy has not translated into widespread adoption by governments, you can't fault him in the end for trying.
post #21 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

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

Quote:
[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

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

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:

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #22 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

But his father DID invent the Interstates:


Sure, never mind this:




Invent means to create something new. Advocating spending is not the same as "inventing."
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #23 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Advocating spending is not the same as "inventing."

Neither is "creating".

Whereas advocating spending can definitely mean "taking the initiative in creating".
post #24 of 54
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?
post #25 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

I don't know why Gore won this.

The press release from the committee gave their stated rationale:

Quote:
Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Quote:
Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

That makes a lot of sense if the nature of the risks we face is a planetary emergency. I'm not sure Gore has explicitly made the connection between environmental politics and world peace, but that's probably immaterial if the committee can recognize the impact of his message on world peace, which is at the very least what they've done here. His award is warranted if you accept the premise that global warming will at some point in the future increase the destabilizing risks of migration or armed conflict between nations. If true, the consequences of global warming won't happen in a vacuum.
post #26 of 54
ShawnJ I had at least 6 or 7 sentences there and quote one? You'll make an excellent lawyer.
post #27 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

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.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #28 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

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

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.
post #29 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

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

That's pretty funny. You're right. I think I was drinking that night.
post #30 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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?
post #31 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

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.
post #32 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

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?

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?
post #33 of 54
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?
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #34 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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.
post #35 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

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

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?
post #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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...
post #37 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #38 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.

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

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #39 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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

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.

Hope that clears that up for you.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #40 of 54
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Al Gore wins the Nobel Prize...