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

Al Gore wins the Nobel Prize... - Page 2

post #41 of 54
10/16/07 at 7:19pm
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?

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?

So the committee robed (sic) peace to pay politics.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 54
10/16/07 at 7:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

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.
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 #43 of 54
10/16/07 at 7:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

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?

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

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

You can disagree with the scale of the planetary emergency and the resulting human consequences we face, but if those premises are true, the committee is justified in awarding Gore the prize. 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. 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).
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 54
10/16/07 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

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

Maybe not necessarily, but check out the life of '91 Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 54
10/16/07 at 8:19pm
I didn't know there was a Nobel Prize for propaganda.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 54
10/16/07 at 8:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

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 ....
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 54
10/16/07 at 8:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

the committee is justified in awarding Gore the prize.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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?
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 54
10/16/07 at 8:50pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 54
10/16/07 at 9:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 54
10/16/07 at 10:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 54
10/16/07 at 10:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 54
10/16/07 at 10:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 54
10/16/07 at 10:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 54
10/16/07 at 10:35pm
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."
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Al Gore wins the Nobel Prize...