Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize, an award traditionally given to someone associated with conflict resolution or more traditional definitions of "peace." He splits the award with the IPCC, the UN Climate Change panel.

Here is a Herald Tribune Article that discusses some of the controversy.

In the article, the committee defends their decision:


Of course, some disagree:


The Swedish-awarded Nobel Prizes are all for specific areas - medicine, physics, chemistry, literature, and economics. Those committees are made up of experts, scientists, and professors in the specific field. (example - medicine). The work is vetted extensively before an award is made.

By contrast, the one Nobel prize awarded by Norway is the Peace Prize. That award committee seems to be made up of European politicians. (committee link)

Questions for debate:

Should Al Gore have won this year's Nobel Peace Prize? Why / Why not?

Any suggestions for a more deserving winner?

Is this particular Nobel more symbolic than the others, thus more appropriate for making a political statement vs. meeting rigid award guidelines?

Yeah and I remember Kissinger getting the same prize. But it fits right into the mold I suppose. Climate change....Lmao. Buy SUV's people.

Popularizing the issue of climate change certainly deserves recognition by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Gore's efforts are important. However, I think I would have chosen someone like NASA's Jim Hansen, whose 30 years of scientific research and courageous public testimony in the face of industry pressures and attempts to silence him by the current administration are even more deserving of recognition. The many thousands of scientists working on the issue have been recognized through the recognition of IPCC as co-winner of the prize.

Incidentally Bjørn Lomborg is not a scientist. He is a business professor.



(See this Wiki Article).

Who cares who wins the Nobel Peace Prize? Arafat? Gorbachev? If it suited their ideology I'm sure they'd have give one to Hitler.

I don't know what warming has to do with peace but they seem to think it does. It's their award. They can give it to whoever they like. Bill Clinton has to be fuming BTW.

BA- I am suprised you can't figure out the logic in this one- there are already wars being fought over the symptoms of this- Darfur/Sudan poeples are fighting, at it's heart- over shrinking resources.

The next war, the next big one, could very well be fought over water rights.

Look at it this way as well- as the equatorial areas become hotter or inudated from flooding- Bangledesh comes to mind- what we will happen to the millions of refugees as they storm richer, northern nations borders?

Or wars over dwindling fish stocks? We are noticing dramatic and wierd changes up here- I will bet money both the Walrus and the Polar bear will go extinct in my time- thier food supplies are being wiped out. Salmon runs are becoming eratic, at best. There are billions of dollars a year at stake here- and some of this stuff is a major part of the food supply of whole nations.

As things get worse- Al Gore will probably do down in history as the guy that made us aware of the implications- first, in a big, public way.

It is ludicrous that this dope won anything. His overblown take on GW does not qualify him nor the IPCC.

By the way Hitler, Stalin and Castro are among those “nominated” for this Prize in the past.

I must admit that I'm enjoying this. It so has right-wing tail feathers ruffled.

I was in the coffee shop about an hour ago. A man came in complaining about Gore's award. I challenged him and he told me I needed to hear what Rush Limbaugh had to say about it. I told him that someone needed to stuff Limbaugh's cigar down his throat. The guy was so mad, he wouldn't even let me buy his coffee. Naturally, I had to find out what Limbaugh said.



http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmart...ives_scoff.html

This will probably be my only post on this thread. I am so enjoying the negative reaction from the right.

BTW: Ted, none of the people you mentioned actually won a Nobel Peace Prize. Gore was not only nominated, but he won. Sorry for the inconvenience. I guess the days are gone when America is proud that one of its own sons has been honored. And conservatives question liberal's patriotism?

http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

Clearly, Al Gore doesn't quite rate the same ire you reserve for Ted Kennedy. While Ted Kennedy eats fresh puppies for breakfast, I suppose Al Gore only eats puppies after they've been properly cooked.


Interestingly enough, I verified that this is true. However, you should realize how the nomination process works. The Nobel Committee invites qualified individuals to nominate. From their website, here are the qualifications:

According to the wikipedia:
In other words, the Nobel Committee doesn't do the nominations; it just evaluates them.

Should Al Gore have won this year's Nobel Peace Prize? Why / Why not?

Yes. Then he should run for president. He could single-handedly save us all from a Hillary Clinton presidency, making him absolutely among the most deserving of recipients in world history.

Any suggestions for a more deserving winner?

If he runs for president, no. If he sits this one out...well, probably someone else. I don't know....Brangelina.

Is this particular Nobel more symbolic than the others, thus more appropriate for making a political statement vs. meeting rigid award guidelines?

I think it's more symbolic, usually political and often there seems to be some dark humor involved. Consider that Ghandi himself never received the award, whereas Arafat did. Maybe the judges stand around and smoke 'em peace pipe and determine the winner by what's written in the opium fumes.

Strangely enough, your opinion is shared by many on the left though our support is framed in a much more positive way. (See John Nichols Article from The Nation, the REAL Liberal Media).

LOL- I am happy just because you are unhappy actually

It is too bad he didn't become president- he is obviously head and shoulders above anyone else in the field- a policy wonk, a genius really, but, in this country- we LOVE ignorance and HATE smart poeple.

That is proven by folks dumb enought to vote for GW TWICE -

I am also impressed by his ability to carry out this message- and do it well. We could really use some competence in the white house after the last 8 years!

Quite frankly- Al Gore is the best person for the job- partly because he doesn't really want it- his heart has never really been into it- and I think folks can see that in him- I think he has always been more about "causes" than really wanting to run others lives, which is what most presidents aspire to do, no matter what letter is behind thier names.

And NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE will ever have that resume' compared to the other bozos in the contest today.

I would vote for him before every candidate but Ron Paul, just because of his pragmatic and non-idealogical approach to problems.

Actually CR it won't be eight years until January 20, 2009. That, however, is a minor mistake and it gives me an oppoirtunity to high-five everything else you've written.

BTW: As Keith Olbermann just said, "This is one win Clarence Thomas can't overturn."

Yes, Al Gore did deserve to win the Nobel Prize. Ecology is as good a reason as any and better than most to encourage cooperation among nations; hence it is a peaceful pursuit.

For those who so vehemently dislike Al Gore, it must be a bitter pill to swallow indeed to think that he has now received an Emmy, and Oscar and the Nobel Prize.

Clearly the better man did not end up as President after the 2000 election, and I would love to see Gore run again in 2008.

Should Al Gore have won this year's Nobel Peace Prize? Why / Why not?

I'll be honest, I don't like the guy. Every time I hear him speak, I think of Saturday Night Live and I laugh(sometimes cringe), man did they have him pegged! His "documentary" was riddled with half-truths and left out pertinent information. I remember watching it and hearing him say over and over "this is NOT about politics", 10 minutes later I'm watching him lose the 2000 election....the guy needs to get over it already, seriously..... I'm still boggled that was in a global warming documentary. Aside from all that, I'll admit it was well put together, he obviously put a lot of time and passion into it. So, I'm not surprised he won an Oscar or the Nobel Peace Prize. Kudos to him, I'm sure he's proud. I'll agree with Mrs. P, he could save us all from what looks to be a lock on the Presidency by Hillary. As I've said before, I'm no fan of Gore, but I'd vote for him before I'd vote for half the contenders we have running right now.

Is this particular Nobel more symbolic than the others, thus more appropriate for making a political statement vs. meeting rigid award guidelines?

To be honest, the first thing I think of when I think of Peace Prize recipient is not a politician who made a "scientific" documentary. It reminded me more of your typical commercial.... (insert well-known celebrity) endorses (insert favorite cereal or athlete's foot cream). So, maybe it was more of a symbolic award. Either way, I can't really think of someone who has had a major impact on "peace" lately. So....let him have his day in the sun, before it gets too hot of course.

Walt a minute.

First, he won an Emmy?
Second, the Academy and the Nobel folks are brids of a feather. GWB could cure cancer and make a movie about it and neither group would award him anything since they don't like "those people". I mean give me a break.

And by your measuring stick maybe Halle Berry should be president.

Get real BA. Bush isn't a medical researcher, so the odds for him curing anything like this are zero. Uh, did I say 0.

On the other hand, if an individual or team found a cure fore even one type of cancer, they might win a Nobel Prize for Medicine.

Oh, and could it be that "they" don't have anything against "those people," just George W. Bush?

Um, Al Gore graduated Harvard WITH HONORS- i.e.- real smart dude.

GW wouldn't have even got in if not for his family, and he had craptacular grades, and, in fact, has done nothing on his own in his whole life that was "under his own steam"- he relied on daddy's friends for EVERYTHING.



With the exception of Yassar Arafat and Henry Kissinger- those two really threw me- but otherwise- there is no undeserving member of the Peace prize in it's history.

Many gave thier lives for peace-Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin, Dr Martin Luther King.

You can find the more true measure of a leader many times by thier behavior AFTER they have left the halls of power.

Jimmy Carter is possibly the most respected living President in the world today- possibly ever- his word is without question, his honesty without reproach. You can dislike his policies while president, but his work is near sainthood.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been under perpetual house arrest, with her non-violent protest of a horrible military junta.

In 1994, Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize, together with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, for the negotiations at Oslo.[

I don't really believe Arafat deserved it based on his life of war, but he did share it with the other two as well. So I see the point- they tried, at the end of thier lives, despite an entire life embroiled in war, to achieve peace. So I can see the logic in the proccess, even if I don't agree in Arafat's case.

Kissinger was possibly the worst one of all- being a war criminal andall - but, it was for his work on a cease fire and withdrawal from Vietnam, so, once again- he worked, like Arafat, at some point, on some level, both worked towards peace/

Each of the controversial winners angered somebody- but the bottom line is, at some point, they worked for peace- and gave it thier best shot, in a major way.

Al Gore has, no matter what the right wing whackos have to say- has made this a world issue, and without him and his tireless work, we would still be taking Rush Limbaughs word that the "jury is still out" on global warming.

The next series of wars, possible total global turmoil, and even the end of our nation, may come about because of the massive global changes that we are on the cusp of , right now.

There hasn't been a right winger that is fit to hold Al's water- not in my lifetime anyway- heck there hasn't even been a republican that can be even called an "elder statesmen" with a straight face in my lfetime.

We should be proud of this guy- he has done a very good thing.

Alternative: Roh Moo-hyun. He's actually trying to end a war and substitute peace for armistice for purposes of bringing about reconciliation. That Al won and Moo-hyun didn't otherwise says more about those voting for the Prize than it does about Al and Moo-hyun.

Oh, and PE, some of us could care less that Al won.

Lastly, one, me, must otherwise hand it to Le Duc Tho, who shared the award with Henry Kissinger in 1973 but declined to accept the same, saying that peace was not yet established. He was right, while those voting for him to receive the award were wrong, and for the proof in the pudding, simply recall his being sent south to oversee the 1975 NVA offensive that brought the Republic of Viet Nam to its end.

Sorry, one more, but carlitoswhey, what "rigid guidelines" are you talking about? All of the other Nobel prizes are awarded by committees of scholars and are usually awarded to those persons whose work has stood the test of time [hence most winners being rather old souls when it comes time to accept]. In contrast, the Peace Prize is awarded not by scholars but by Norwegian politicians, and they have made no pretense in the past about their choice[s] having more to do with political direction and less to do with who really did something to achieve or help achieve peace, and never mind that when making the call before the dust settles, well, what do Carter, Rabin, and Arafat have to show for their peace?

Yes, Al Gore won an award for using his position to help aid the world not just America in understanding about global warming, which holds the promise if not confronted of ending life as we know it. Personally I think we should just hate the man for being what he really is, a product of the liberal media lying to everyone so commies can take over America and ban the bible. I mean global warming, what is that, its just another hoax by science, similar to gravity and evolution. This is a debasement of morality to think the corrupt committee which is responsible for the noble peace prize would stoop so low as to support Gores liberal agenda of world wide communism and bible ending. I mean what’s next, people protesting for clean drinking water! I mean with this people have some nerve asking for evidence of why we invaded Iraq, or wait, why we are even there. I mean these people would actually risk democracy by thinking about what their commander in chief is doing with this find and god filled country, it makes me almost sick to then think such people actually would have the nerve to point out the over the top amount of times our fair leader has lied on just about everything, I mean what’s next, being able to be homosexual without living in fear for your life? No wonder god punished our heathen ways.

Should Al Gore have won this year's Nobel Peace Prize? Why / Why not?

I don't believe so. I don't see how Al Gore has done anything to bring about peace. All he has done is preach to the faithful about global warming. I hear the argument that climate change is going to mean more wars in the future but I don't see how it follows that saying this is in anyway going to change it. Lots of people have made the exact same point. What makes Gore so different from them except that he is a popular 'non conservative US politician' (and you'd better believe Democrats are way more popular than Republicans in Norway).

I am certain there is a great deal of 'sympathy' involved in this selection. That the Norwegian Nobel commitee is awarding this prize as a means of making clear how much more they'd rather have seen a President Gore in the White House after the 2000 elections. It is a decleration of political solidarity far more than a serious attempt to promote global peace or reward some one who has actively worked towards establishing peace.


Any suggestions for a more deserving winner?

Its difficult because like so much else in this media fuelled world, the award has become dependent on celebrity or at least media attention and so few celebrity's show themselves deserving. If anything, media attention shows us people's failings to the degree where it becomes imposible to find a deserving candidate from the multitude of faces on the screen.

Paul Rusesabagina perhaps?

In my humble opinon, the Nobel Peace prize should be given to people on the ground actually working towards creating peace or who did a brave act which could inspire others, whether they be anonymous diplomats or nurses or soldiers, or just plain every day people who stepped up and did the right thing in a moment of desperation like Rusesabagina apparently did. The Nobel Peace prize should not be given to undeserving media personalities or self serving politicians simply because they 'said something that fits with the political views of the Nobel commitee'.


Is this particular Nobel more symbolic than the others, thus more appropriate for making a political statement vs. meeting rigid award guidelines?

Yes, its symbolic and its meant to be symbolic. Its supposed to tell us of the danger of global climate change, as if we didn't already know this, as if the CIA hadn't already made the exact same points years before Al Gore did. Are the CIA also deserving of this peace prize?

edited to add:

Norman Borlaug who has been called the father of the Green Revolution, won the Nobel Peace prize in 1970. One might say there was a parrellel between Borlaug's work and Gore's. The difference is, Borlaug, an agricultural scientist was awarded the prize for his 'contributions to the world food supply'.

It seems to me that, for what ever reason, the Nobel Prize is no longer awarded to the players, but to the cheer leaders.

I think you pretty much nailed it here Gordo- right wingers have been in charge of this country since 1980, and the only issue they have is to scare poeple that mean ol' liberals are picking on them.

however- I am going to edit it and make it a cleaner document, if you don't mind, and use parts of it as a sig I think

Just read all of the previous posts. It happens to have very little to do with Gore on any factual basis. More or less reading it reminds me of something along the lines of acts you might find in an X rated movie. Why? Is Gore doing anything really in the political world today? Has he issued some statement I should know about? He uses his position to go global attempting to influence people towards respecting the reality of global warming, that’s all the guy does anymore really, and for that he should be hated on in terms that are no more then simply acts derived from the mindless jargon that is spin. Probably lots of people could be in the running for such an award like that, but global warming being what it is, I guess they are tying to make a statement about what’s important these days with such an act. A majority of anything scientific these days be it an individual to an organization understands what global warming is. Understanding the reality of global warming is not something people educated in political science and law really should be attempting to corrupt with jargon. I mean how many people reading this without consulting the net can tell me what a nucleophile is? I guess someone good with Latin might be able to but that’s just the point. Gore is a politician, he never tries to make himself more then that. He presents all of his sources, nothing is hidden from view, his sources come from sound scientific practice, the kind that saves life and invents cures to disease and finds out how to put a man on the moon. Not to be a science fanboy but if you removed that way of life or institution from humanity in all forms it would be impossible I think for an individual to imagine what that reality would look like.

Its really unfortunate that political bias would lead to issues like this, then again as Hillary is becoming something of a threat the grade school political jargon engine is nothing but a pointer to the reality of what politics has become in short order. You know the governator down in California recently hosted a conference to hopefully speed up global concentration on stopping global warming. The man has the tag R by his name, he could use his position just as much as Gore, the only different is you wont see threads condemning the man as everything including the anti-christ.

BTW, I don’t care for any sort of fame that I don’t truly deserve, such as when I drop a dish doing dishes, but if you want to use some words I put together for a quote, go ahead I am fine with it. Also sorry for my disgusting act of cynicism, it was just to much to bear as I got to the bottom of the thread.

I watched Gore on his interview yesterday- I think it was the Today show or something- and he was asked if he was endorsing anyone. He declined, and named John McCain as seeing eye to eye with him on the issue of global warming, though he said that he thought McCain was moving away from that for political votes - though he didn't outright say it - but he was the only candidate he called out by name in the interview- but I thought he was very gracious in continueing to name the scientists that worked so hard on this issue- and continued to say he was just the face that made th science public.

I don't think anyone thinks Al Gore doesn't actually believe what he's saying - even if his lifestyle seems hypocritial against what he preaches and the "indulgences" racket he's in on seems shady - Gore is definitely sincere about Global Warming. That doesn't mean he's not wrong and that he's being duped. Global Warming is the latest eco-drama and it's waaaaay trendy. Even if it is man made there isn't a blessed thing we can do about it in the short term, or even long term. However the entire thing is a scam on the short haul and ultimately a way of seriously injuring capitalism in the long. Most of the eco-dramas have been ways to curb capitalism.

Which doesn't mean they're not real or that the people who bring them to light aren't sincere about the danger. What it means is that the people who are marketing these ideas, the money men have more nefarious ends for the means of eco-drama. There's no reason for the average Joe to know about Global Warming. If anyone were truly serious about this then Governments would simply enact limits on emissions and such. However, pandering to and inflaming the public on these topics serves only to bend the will of Governments to work against the better interest of the citizenry. Sort of, Yes we know we're destroying your enconomy but we're saving you.

So when Al Gore wins a medal for championing Global Warming on one hand you can say, Hey it's their award but on the other be reminded that none of this is really about saving the planet it's about pushing an agenda that runs against the betterment of society.

What agenda is against the betterment of society BA?

I don’t know about that. As far as I am concerned the reality of the curbing to capitalism is short term. I find it hard to believe that a great many people seem to think our current lifestyles are the only option for survival with comfort. Its patently false to believe that. One could still have fossil fuel use in a energy portfolio, a strategy the department of energy is trying to emphasize. The other reality is how to get to a greener lifestyle from here, which is the real problem because it entails change, which can mean a variety of things to a variety of people. I think personally government does not know fully how to handle the issue. On one end if the step in with the EPA they are communists, on the other hand if they do nothing the real power to change then comes as the company and civic/individuals level. But on the individual level living green would mean living in the forest on nothing if at the company business level no resources are going in for change. In which I think spending some time pondering the issue you will find like a great many things its human action and thought that needs to be changed via education. People wont care about being green if they don’t understand a damn thing about it. Personally I would like to see environmental science become a normal part of curriculum starting and first grade and continuing even in college, actually integrated even into sciences and related so the reality of the environment and what it means is understood in worldview.

No one is saying the environment is not a complex system with many dynamic variables. The reality as put forward by global warming is rather simple though and originates in the late 1800s with a noble prize winning physicist. Basically you have in time the actions of humanity collectively altering variables in the physical environment, such as composition and concentration of various chemicals that compose the atmosphere that interact with other aspects of our environment such as the sun. Such eco minded ideas can become trendy, but the reality of global warming is hardly that with the existing data nor is the reality overall of human impact on the environment. As for an angle economically speaking the amount of money America would have to put out for human politician of various flora would be sort of a rival to the bill Iraq requires on a constant basis. This is but one aspect of the environment that is poorly understood, which as you might think could aid in false eco trends being able to survive in the first place.



It is truly about saving the planet. I mean life in total wont die, but it wont be a place likely hospitable for many species such as humans to say the least. I think one issue with global warming is that its not something that happens in one day, so people don’t feel threatened by it. A great many people in America do not pursue educations in science, or natural sciences. Subsequently learning about global warming is impaired to such people. Its not that they cant, but its far easier to just listen to a trusted politician. Politicians though happen to represent interests, which I don’t think is hard to see. If you go and read a primer on environmental science you will see that education represents all basic natural sciences plus social sciences. That’s the reality environmental science students face in the classroom and then in the real world. I don’t think such a field would exist if human impact on the environment was a null issue, and remember our activity that would bring about global warming from many different angles has been occurring for sometime now and is growing in time.

Wow, you should type that up in essay form and title it Protocols of the Elders of Eco-Drama. Seriously, wow. Something's leaking through the tin-foil there, pard!

But really, I'm sure you're right. Eco-drama is all about a secret plan to kill capitalism. Here's a good example: Lumber companies clear cut in the Chuksa mountains in NE Arizona. With more open space, less snowpack sticks around long enough. Less snow stays to melt in the Spring and provide replenishment for the aquifer under Northern Arizona. On the other side, near the area of Black Mesa, Energy companies run coal from strip mining operations through long pipes as slurry, mixed with water from the aquifer. With less input and unusually large output (the coal slurry), northern Arizona has been experiencing droughts. But hear me, I don't bring this up because it represents any environmental danger. I bring it up because in response to it I want the Arizona government to do something really, really anti-capitalist. Not sure what - I'll think of it and get back to you.

It's asinine to say the ecological concern is a mask for anti-capitalism. If it's anti-capitalist to want to stop a chemical company from, say, dumping waste into a river that supplies a reservoir, then you're saying that a company dumping into a river must somehow be capitalist. Sorry, but wanting to inhibit bad behavior by businesses and governments isn't anti-capitalist, not any more than wanting to lock up criminals is anti-freedom.

Thank you.



While it is true that if there is a way to make big bucks purveying a message, no matter how green it is (or whatever), someone is going to do it, I disagree that the average Joe should be kept in the dark about Global Warming. Those who advance the "need to know" concept of keeping their countrymen informed possess an arrogance, no, hubris when judging that what they don't know can't hurt them.

What the populace does with this information is likely not all going to be positive, but it doesn't negate their right to know what is happening to the environment.


You are clearly in the camp of the minority opinion on this. If you live near a volcano and keep hearing rumblings and seeing periodic flaming discharges from its summit, doesn't it make sense to plan to move your family and your things somewhere else? But in this case, there is nowhere to go at this time to escape the consequences of a changing earth. It makes sense to try to forestall global changes if we can, by wasting less, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and utilizing non-polluting sources of energy as it is possible.

If you have a relative with chronic bronchitis, it makes sense not to smoke around that person. That person may still develop lung cancer regardless of what you do, but why continue a habit that has been shown to exacerbate lung disease? So it is with dealing with Global Warming. If there is something you can do, then do it. If we can let legislators know that it should be a priority not to make a bad situation worse when it comes to energy use and pollutants, then we should do it.

Is it?

I keep hearing how the majority of scientists agree that the climate is changing. What I don't hear or see is any sort of consensus regarding the actual cause. I haven't seen this film, but from what I've read, it places the blame for global warming fair and square on humanity.

Furthermore, a look at the IPCC (who remain invisible in this thread) leads to further water muddying....

Link.
Thus, we have a Nobel PEACE prize shared between a politician who made a dubious film and a UN body which does not carry out research, nor monitor climate or related phenomena but publishes 'special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change'.

What does this have to do with PEACE?

Answer: Nothing.

Al Gore has made a film which does not rely on the full evidence, but takes a pre conceived bias and builds upon it. The IPCC is an organisation created to do the very same thing. There is NOTHNG in either the IPCC or Al Gore's film that is going to promote peace or is going to prevent war.

Nothing.

The ipcc was involved in political turmoil from the instance of its first report because combating global warming by its nature happens to be a global issue. I am not surprised then that a multitude of attempts by various parties lacking discretion have attempted to downgrade the ipcc to what is a more common view of being a corrupt entity.

A simple way to combat this is to ask whom is to profit from this giant supposed corrupt cabal going on? I mean if that is what the ipcc to eco trends are to be, chiefly global warming in this context, who or what is the group and or mastermind behind it and what to they want? I am sorry to say but combating global warming being a global issue means it takes everyone to react to it, not just America, not just China or Russia. The desire to abstain from working on the issue though surely has fractured any global resolve truly to combat such.

No one can lay a solid answer as to whom or what the nefarious party or parties happen to be, what the motivation is nor the goal save for fragmented and abstract answers that real reduce to nothing as a function for an answer to such a question. Such tactics to downplay the reality of global warming have actually spawned millions of dollars worth of information warfare based not on science but in the realm of attacking basic ignorance of the issue in the public to spread little more the confusion as to stem the flow of change to lifestyles that represent and more green and or ecologically sound way of life. This has been documented to the limit many times and has highly prestigious and globally recognized scientific organizations to do what little they can such as publish reports about such and write letters to such companies, which incidentally but not shockingly happen to be the ones surviving via fossil fuels for instance.

Not to say the IPCC is perfect its not. One thing it does have going for it though is the scientific community of people it employs for such which is done sort of indirectly is from all over the world, which I find as a good way to stem any fallacy that issues like nationalism could induce. This is reflected in all levels of IPCC operations.

As for your remark on the idea of combating global warming effecting war. I don’t know really what to say on that one. If the world switched to a primarily non fossil fuel base, I would think the economies of the mid east would collapse. On that note though such is both positive and negative for various reasons. Another avenue is global warming will in relation to life change environments rather rapidly, which typically is never ever a good thing. Every nation on the face of the planets economy is fully intertwined and dependent on the ecology the people happen to occupy, devastation of such on a large scale would only serve to ruin economy and ruin any global stability really. Plus not only this would could simply view what a real resource crunch would mean. So yes, I would suggest that the environment of course plays a role in peace and conflict, as for combating global warming, well its sort of simple. Let the planet basically go out in what will be pure horror from the reality of global warming, or do stuff to combat it. The first step is education, in which Al Gore has been crusading all over the planet attempting to do for sometime now.

Moif, I'm surprised at your use of selective quotes from a Wikipedia article to make a point that totally contradicts the thrust of the article. You quoted:



The complete selection reads:

(See IPCC Wiki Article).

And from this distortion you conclude,



The IPCC has never pretended to sponsor original research. Rather its participating scientists conduct a rigorous review of the available peer reviewed papers that relate to climate change and assess the current consensus view of the most recent work. Most, if not all, of the participating scientists have contributed original research in the field they are reviewing. The IPCC's conclusions tend to be very conservative only including things that have been well established. This accounts for the AR4 only concluding that most recent warming was human caused to a confidence level of 90% when many participants argued that a 99% level was supportable. It also accounts for their failure to address the recent observed instability in the Greenland ice sheet because the studies were too recent and needed more confirmation. Almost every major scientific body has endorsed the major conclusion of the IPCC. (See this Other Wiki Article).

(BaphometsAdvocate), I'm not sure what point your trying to make in viewing advocates that want to address global warming while the world economy is reasonablely productive as being anti-capitalist. One could more cogently argue that we are trying to save current economic structures by preventing the chaos and inevitable restructuring that will follow drastic climate change. Perhaps this argument and others you have advanced have something do with the AD name you picked, BaphometsAdvocate. If I'm not mistaken, Baphomet was the supposed object of worship revealed by the Knights Templar when they were tortured in the 1300s. Some took him to be the devil. Is your name another way of identifying yourself as the Devil's Advocate and should we take your statements in that context?

As to the factual basis for the film, I think one of the best tests of his film was an actual lawsuit filed in England, by a truckdriver that wanted "a school free of bias"- so a judge ruled on it, allowed the film to be played, but with a disclaimer, basically.

So what was the contention? There were NINE WHOLE FACTS wrong- out of the hundreds that the documentary laid out- and, on top of that, those nine ARE born out by some evidence- just not overwhelming enough to "be sure"- but, that it was placed in an "alarmist atmosphere"- too emotional for the judges liking, I suppose.

So- there is one fact I know better than anyone on this board- the arctic is changing, and the polar bear is doomed. Only, not by drowning as the movie portrays- rather, dwindling food supplies. And, most bears do starve to death on ice flows or in the water- they have been known to swim for hundreds of miles. But they get too weak to keep swimming for food. I have seen some badly malnourished Polar bears back when it was pretty good for them, just not big enough or bad enough to wrestle food from his fellow bears.

So, Gore took license when he said they would drown from no ice,or rather, a logical shortcu.

So, nine facts out of the whole movie.

I am pleased when a news commentator or politcian gets 9 RIGHT.

Linky to one papers take on the British ruling:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/335217_gore12.html

He said the government's plan to show the film violated laws banning the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom, but could proceed if teachers ensure that Gore's political views are not seen as being endorsed by schools.

Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for the former vice president, said the judge's decision backed key elements of the documentary.

"The ruling upheld fundamental pieces of the film and the scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activities," she told The Associated Press. "Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up."

Burton outlined nine problems -- including Gore's claim that sea level rises of 23 feet might occur in the immediate future -- something the judge characterized as "distinctly alarmist."

He also cited claims that Hurricane Katrina, the evaporation of most of Lake Chad and the melting of the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro were all caused by global warming. Burton said there was insufficient evidence to back those claims.

Burton's ruling follows a challenge from a part-time school official who complained that Gore's film was inaccurate and biased and should not be shown to pupils.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21259069/

U.K. judge: Gore’s climate film has 9 problems
'Inconvenien t Truth' points largely made in 'context of alarmism,' he writes


Oh boo hoo, nine freakin exagerations, at best, with studies that back up those alleged "exagerations"

How many Republican or right wing radio can claim only nine disputable facts in the course of a DAY?

I shall repeat myself for the hard of hearing...

I keep hearing how the majority of scientists agree that the climate is changing. What I don't hear or see is any sort of consensus regarding the actual cause.

Gordo.

Telling me that a 'multitude of attempts by various parties lacking discretion have attempted to downgrade the IPCC to what is a more common view of being a corrupt entity' ignores what I actually said (or is it a straw man?). I have not said the IPCC is a corrupt entity, I said it was biased (see below for clarification of that point).

Your whole post misses the mark completely because you're arguing a dead end tangent that has nothing to do with my point.


TedN5.

Why are you suprised when you just did much the same thing? I do not care if 'national and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative'. Of course it is 'authorative' given that it is a UN body. That is its very nature.

The point I am making is that the stated aims of the IPCC (as described the Wikipedia article under the heading 'aims') are to assess scientific information relevant to:



Do you see what it says there? It says the IPCC was created in order to assess scientific information relevant to human-induced climate change.

There is no questioning on the part of the IPCC as to the actual cause of global warming. It is taken as a given.

It is not, nor is there any scientific consensus or proven knowledge that the planet is experiencing man made global warming. The fact is, we simply don't know. The scientists, by their own admission, don't know. Al Gore doesn't know. None of us do. We have high temperature readings and an increase in CO2 emissions and we conclude that humanity is to blame for global warming.

However, from 300 odd years up to the 1850's the Earth was perceived to be in a period of global cooling and what we are in now may be a natural repeat of the preceeding medieval warm period. Again, we simply don't know.

If you go to the primary source of the temperature numbers, you will not find any one telling you why the temperature is risen as much as it has, even if the dude in charge at GISS is 'interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans' potential impacts on climate.' GISS still don't break their scientific impartiality to ascribe a cause to the increase in temperature readings. They don't because they know that they don't know what is causing global warming.

None of us do, no matter what we believe.

And thats my point. No matter admirable Al Gore's sentiments are, no matter how much his film rests on scientific study, the bottom line is, his conclusions are guesses, as are the conclusions of any other person, scientist or othewise who claims to know why the Earth is warmer now than it was in 1850.

And none of this bears on the nature of war at all. War is not going to stop because Al Gore made a film about climate change or because the UN set up a body to prove Global warming was man made. If anything, global warming is going to increase the likelihood of wars in future and the notion that anyone gives a peace prize to a soothsayer who tells us 'bad times ahead' is a joke. Its laughable.

How did Al Gore create or promote peace? Where does peace factor into this prize giving? Has Al Gore changed the world? ...or even a small conflict some where. Has he stopped any conflicts or helped any refugee's escape the onslaught of global warming? I take my hat off to Al Gore, I do. I believe he's a good fella at heart. Its a shame he couldn't be more brave when he had the chance to actually make a difference, but at least he's trying, even if he's possibly barking up the wrong tree.

He doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize because he has not done anything towards creating peace. He is merely the current left wing poster child and thus very popular in Oslo.


CR.

Since when do judges carry the weight of scientific credentials which out weighs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (the people who actually measure the Earths mean temp)?

It seems to me that if the GISS is not prepared to ascribe humanity as the cause, sole or otherwise to global warmining, then nothing an English judge concludes makes much impact at all. Nor Al Gore either for that matter.

And any way, this is OT.

EVEN if Al Gore is dead on the money, and I don't deny the possibility, merely the probability, then he still doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace prize!!!


edited to clarify a point

A debate requires that a person goes outside of his or her set or mode to the points also laid out the other person. I feel I did that with your previous post but in this one as a rebuttal you attack yet just one point that was more or less and opener to various points I was to make following such. You still did not answer my basic question as to whom or what is the nefarious cabal responsible for the supposed propaganda that is global warming or how this even ties into Gore or the topic at hand.

If you simply want to just state your position over and over that’s fine, but I don’t have to agree with you and such again is hardly something I can really debate. I follow the science of global warming, I can understand how even the equations of Maxwell or other more basic aspects of math can support GW to the multitude of other scientific reports from respected bodies that have sprouted evidence to support global warming as in connection to human behavior/activities. Gore is but a mouth piece to relate this information, and he does so in an open format in which the public has the ability to for itself examine the sources. We have hardly that with more basic aspect of government in relation to America currently in which clarity and accessibility is hardly much more then spin speeches and mantras. I will not claim double standard or blatant hypocrisy on your part but it would seem the worldviews involved seemingly don’t hold absolute moral standards to claims of wrongdoing, or how whatever science is doing currently is even wrong in the first place, save it was used by the opposition primarily thusly its an act of communism brought to earth to ban the bible me thinks. To escape moral relativism, which obviously exists in many forms beyond any reason of doubt to anyone not living in a cave detached from reality, what’s the point again to bashing on Gore. Is it really so simple as the idea he won an award, I cant remember the last time I ever witnessed a thread like that on this debate site. I mean if Gore is wrong for winning an award for using his life to traverse the globe spreading a message about something very serious and real, then I would think the level of shock basically to the stupidity of our dear leader should be enough to induce a coma or death to those same people.

Because since I never made that point (exactly where did I make mention of a 'nefarious cabal'?) then I feel no compunction to defend it.

You appear to be confusing my posts with those of a certain other poster.


This paragraph is so convoluted that I don't understand what you are saying at all. You appear to be suggesting that Al Gore is being unfairly criticized (see bolded text), and apparently by me...

I am not criticizing Al Gore for anything but expressing his OPINION as fact. I am completely open to the possibility that he MIGHT be right, but also that he MIGHT be wrong.

Thats what it means when I wrote...


The bottom line is, Al Gore has been given a PEACE prize.

Making a film about global warming, a film that purports to explain global warming as a direct product of humanity, when even the scientists who record the Earths mean temperature can not do so, does not qualify any one, no matter who they are for a Nobel Peace prize.

Talking about global warming has nothing to do with promoting peace on Earth.

Show me an actual, real life example of how Al Gore brought peace by making this film, or even the IPCC! What have they ever done but corelate data to fit a preconception?

Moif this is probably the most accurate statement anyone has yet made.

With the exception of you, Moif, who has tried to makes substantial points, it’s gratifying to see all the domestic Gore haters eating grapes. Get used to Gore’s success, there are those of us who had to deal with him lose a stolen election and being painted a buffoon for years. It’s a sweet victory - Oh, did I already say, Gore critics get used to it.

Maybe its a matter of perception but I don’t find the same as satisfying. I do not know exactly the criteria one needs to have fulfilled before they make the ranks of a viable candidate for such an award, but I would say environmental security deffinently would play a role in peace and conflict. I don’t know if its common knowledge but the pentagon has plans, military grade plans for the reality of drinking water becoming less then a common commodity. It only takes a drought to kill untold amounts of people in the world also, or a heat wave. If the environment becomes unstable due to global warming this will in turn effect people greatly in regards to stability, comfort and general survival. I would also hate to bring up this point but combat over resources is ancient in human behavior, and last time I checked though it seems to be changing is no real warfare has occurred for the artic for example.

Lastly peace on dealing with or having resolution globally on global warming is not something yet reached. With the hope that governments give a slight damn about there people or even the voice of such which is somewhat common in the world, I think what gore is doing is deffinently a move towards peace and stability, survival and reduction in human misery. I mean most would hardly care to get into specific but even the existence of biotic factors not just abiotic influences not only human evolution but well being, and this also goes for other organisms, chiefly in large scale the type various populations for lack of better words rely on for survival.

So yes I can easily see how the works of Gore also can be viewed as acts for peace.

Who doesn't like Gore? I mean, more accurately, who actively has negative feelings towards Al Gore? I mean it would be like disliking driftwood. How sweet is the victory for Al Gore, poster boy for the angry left - still ticked about losing an election almost 8 years ago, when he wins the awards from groups that lean heavily to the Left. The Academy, whoever gives out The Emmy and the Nobel gang? I mean, what took them so long? That's the real question.

Let's see Al Gore win an award from The American Conservative Union, The Heritage Foundation or The Young American Foundation. I mean talk about low hanging fruit. He seems like a decent, if not opressively dull, guy. On the plus side it's good news for Liberal America and I hope you folks use this example to come up with a positive agenda instead of hoping for American losses abroad, a tanked economy or another terrorist attack on American soil.

It seems from this thread, that Gore is dislike by a number of people.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry227838

"Driftwood"? If an internationally popular Gore is driftwood, what are we to make of an internationally unpopular Bush, who's poll numbers have remained in the tank for almost two years. You could just as easily say that Gore has united the "angry right."

Let's see RCP average for Bush, 34% favorable; 61.8% unfavorable.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry227838

Compare that to Gore's 51/44 favorable vs. unfavorable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=389x2030165

BTW: If you are attempting humor here, you fail miserably.

Yes but last time I checked in the realm of political conflicts Gore basically stopped when the government elected bush right? I mean from that point on he basically has had little to do directly by any means with government based affairs. I don’t ever see him in the news for that matter dealing with it. Personally it seems as is his life has been reduced to dealing with global warming, in which he has become a poster boy for. I think the attacks on him have to do with the fact he is a democrat and or a liberal I guess more then it has to do with anything else. Also, I don’t remember the last time America or the left as it would be so thoroughly hung on the vote of a Nobel peace prize, or overall I think its connections being made to explain behavior that don’t really hold any water. They hand out the award every year also, so for what its worth as being a lifetime achievement token its hardly the rarest commodity on earth as far as awards go.

First let me comend you on side stepping the fact that Gore won awards from left leaning groups. Seond:

Certainly, Gore's wooden persona, pedantic speaking style, and self-congratulatory comments about his own high ethical standards have led to his being considered a real straight arrow in an otherwise dubious profession.

Call me shallow, but I would have been grateful for some dancing penguins by the end of the evening. If Al Gore can overcome a boring speaking style to educate the masses, others can follow in green pursuit.

Afterward, Maureen Dowd complained in print that Gore had been so boring, droning on and on about heath care and the environment.

What is it about Al Gore that renders him so admirable and yet simultaneously insufferable?

The creators of the movie presumably thought that simply presenting Gore's slide show would be too dull, so they decided to give the movie some human interest by interweaving a biography of Al Gore's life. Al Gore has led an interesting life, but "interesting" and "Al Gore" are not words one can often put together. Al Gore is boring, and the 20 minutes or so of biography presented in An Inconvenient Truth is too much for a movie that is 1 hour and 36 minutes long.

These are from people that LIKE him and I wasn't even trying...

So BA, what does all this mean.

The fact is he won the "Nobel Pece Prize." His right-wing haters can't change that.

I'll bet he's singing the George Gershwin song, "They Can't Take That Away from Me," right now. Is that Gore or Frank Sinatra I hear in the background?

You know, they did take something away from him once upon a time. Poetic justice!

Here are some facts as I see them- we are on the edge of a real global catastrophe. Al Gore has brought that debate to everybody- even right here on this board.

We will be dealing with this issue as an issue of peace vs war very soon- in fact, we can say it is already happening due to the drought issues in countries like Sudan.

Warning the world of dire consequences, possibly the single most important issue for the next several centuries, and making us aware that wars will be fought over this, and cause global LACK of peace, well, that even trumps the hero from the "Rwandan Hotel"- brave as he was- that was regional, this is global.

Look at developments in the middle east over water- already. The dead sea will be, um, even deader? - very soon- because they are sucking all the water out of that Sea's sources. Isreal will face another war not over religious issues- but because they are taking the water. China is taking water from Vietnam.

A four foot sea level rise will wipe out most of the worlds beaches.

And since most of the world's population lives in the most effected zones- we will have millions, possibly even billions, of refugees to northern countries. What happens when 50 or 60 million poeple start illegal running to the US?

ya, there are implications for peace and war all over this issue- and Al gore made it important and focused in our minds.

But they can simply choose to ignore the Nobel Peace prize as yet another politically slanted excuse to award those in the "club". THink of how deprecated the Academy Awards are now. No one watches them on TV, no one cares about the outcome. Some recent Academy Award winners truly deserve their awards others are just playing on the right team. It's tainted, everyone knows it. Now the Nobel Peace prize which was already suspect has yet another mark against it with this non-sensical award given to Al Gore and the IPCC. When we all look back on this time we'll all wonder how so many people fell for this hogwash.