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
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
It is imbecilic to judge a prize simply on its title.
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.
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..
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.
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.
But nothing in Gore's plan suggests that today's trends will be affected much if we follow him.
On what grounds?
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.
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.
Yea... funny he didn't mention his creation of the Internets in his speech. Weird.
[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:
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."