Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

[joebob]

11 minutes ago:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_on_re_eu/nobel_peace

Official announcement of the Norwegian Nobel Committee: http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lau_announce2007.html

Other links to follow, I'm sure...

For instance, Reuters asking about a presidential run: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN12437521

[markalot]

Man did I just lose a lot of respect for the Nobel committee.

[joebob]

well i can see where this thread is going to go...

[silentpaul]

Man did I just lose a lot of respect for the Nobel committee.
It's not that bad. It's not like they gave it to Michael Moore.

[dannyboy]

"Awarding it to Al Gore cannot be seen as anything other than a political statement. Awarding it to the IPCC is well-founded," said Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist."... "They (Nobel committee) have a unique platform in getting people's attention on this issue, and I regret they have used it to make a political statement."

In this instance, I can't help but agree.

[the happy prole]

Kind of ironic in that Bjorn Lomborg is kind of the mirror image of Gore.

[Sushi]

The Nobel Peace Prize is often given to make a political statement, for example Aung Sang Suu Ki, Desmond Tutu, and Lech Walesa. This is a little different, and not just because it's close to home, but it's certainly not unheard of for the Nobel Committee deliberately to award a Peace Prize that they know will ruffle some feathers.

[the happy prole]

It's certainly not unheard of for the Noble Peace Prize to suck ass. I'm just saying.

[Sushi]

It's certainly not unheard of for me to suck capitalist ass. I'm just saying.
FTFY. :p :p :p :p

[Marlowe]

i hope al gore thanks george bush in his acceptance speech, because GWB is the only reason gore won. hey, if you don't mind being a political message, then i guess it's great to win. but no one who is remotely serious thinks this is something that's deserved.

[akip]

woot woot woot woot! congrats al g! :)

[gwar469]

maybe i'm a little slow, but what does talking about Global Warming even have to with "peace"?

[markalot]

The Nobel Peace Prize is often given to make a political statement, for example Aung Sang Suu Ki, Desmond Tutu, and Lech Walesa.

While that might be political those people made real sacrifices for peace. What did Al do again?

[jneale]

We have no one but ourselves to blame for the view the rest of the world has of the United States of America.

At the end of Al’s flick he isn’t calling for massive changes – just lots of little ones & it hopefully gets people to think about the impact we are making on natural systems.

Pick the facts apart all ya want – you miss the core idea.

The rest of the world hates us & I don’t blame them. Maybe they used this recognition to make a point; who cares? It is too bad the argument in the US will reduced to one of anti-Gore rhetoric. Americans are becoming uglier by the moment.

[jneale]

maybe i'm a little slow, but what does talking about Global Warming even have to with "peace"?
Its about making the world a better place.

[akip]

myopic friends, i'd argue that since degradation of environment, which climate change exacerbates, already has plenty to do with world conflict and it will only become worse as that change spirals. Big Al deserves his day in the sun.

[jneale]

...... some man who wants to enact change now to bring environmental happiness to generations that have yet to be born.
Environmental happiness? How ‘bout “survival of the environment” it isn’t about hugging trees.

[gwar469]

Its about making the world a better place.

but, technically, he's yet to make any part of the world a better place. all he's doing at the moment is just talking about it. it's good to start dialogue and get people thinking, but did he really deserve this award on the merits of "peace"? seems to me like past winners of the award had more tangible results of "peace" than just words.

maybe, they should have waited a couple of years more to give him this award, if they still felt it was truly deserved. almost seems like this award was given at this time to push him towards the presidency, whether that was their intention or not.

[markalot]

Again, what sacrifice did Al Gore make for peace? Having to fly all over in his private jet? Making money off a movie? Spending time in jail? Organizing a labor movement to overthrow a communist regime? What?

[akip]

words ARE powerful and a film can be even more so. nothing happens till people are convinced change is necessary.

[clonE]

myopic friends, i'd argue that since degradation of environment, which climate change exacerbates, already has plenty to do with world conflict and it will only become worse as that change spirals. Big Al deserves his day in the sun.

gotta give a big ol 'DING!' to that comment, more wars are coming, fighting over resources is the usual cause, and global warming may very well exacerbate the scarcity of resources.

[dannyboy]

Why didn't scientists/reseachers out on the front lines collecting and analyzing data get this award instead of the highly visible mouthpiece?



edited to add:

It seems no different to me than corporate CEOs collecting large paychecks and praise on the underappreciated backs of those that made it happen.

[silentpaul]

NPR made the point that global warming affects resource availability, particularly that of water. Growing populations require more resources. Environmental responsiblity goes a long way toward provision of resources.

[akip]

NPR made the point that global warming affects resource availability, particularly that of water. Growing populations require more resources. Environmental responsiblity goes a long way toward provision of resources.

yessir. and coming from a man who's doing his reading.

[REMgirl]

"I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–the world’s pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis–a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years. We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.

My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis."

Yay for Al Gore!

[gwar469]

NPR made the point that global warming affects resource availability, particularly that of water. Growing populations require more resources. Environmental responsiblity goes a long way toward provision of resources.

but isn't global warming melting the polar ice caps, thereby making more fresh water available to people? [/sarc]

how does global warming affect water availability?

[Breeze]

Why didn't scientists/reseachers out on the front lines collecting and analyzing data get this award instead of the highly visible mouthpiece?



edited to add:

It seems no different to me than corporate CEOs collecting large paychecks and praise on the underappreciated backs of those that made it happen.

Is the issue that the front-lines guys are getting overlooked in favor of the mouthpiece... or is it that the mouthpiece in question happens to be Al Gore?

[the happy prole]

Again, what sacrifice did Al Gore make for peace? Having to fly all over in his private jet? Making money off a movie? Spending time in jail? Organizing a labor movement to overthrow a communist regime? What?

People win Nobel Peace Prizes for grudgingly agreeing to stop killing other people. Henry fucking Kissinger won the damn thing.

Yes, it's stupid that Al Gore won. Get over it. It's a joke. It's been a joke for years. Every once in a while you get a Maathi or something, but the majority of the time it sucks.

[the happy prole]

Why didn't scientists/reseachers out on the front lines collecting and analyzing data get this award instead of the highly visible mouthpiece?

They did. The IPCC won half the award.

[jneale]

maybe, they should have waited a couple of years more to give him this award, if they still felt it was truly deserved. almost seems like this award was given at this time to push him towards the presidency, whether that was their intention or not.

it is also awarded to people who make discoveries that have benefits for the future, i don't think it has anything to do with the presidency - more of a statement of "here is an American that we don't hate" or "we hate Bush so well put Gore in the spot light."

[silentpaul]

but isn't global warming melting the polar ice caps, thereby making more fresh water available to people? [/sarc]

how does global warming affect water availability?
"Water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink."

It changes predominant weather patterns. Rain doesn't fall in the same amounts in the same places. Mountains aren't covered with as much snow in the winter, so there isn't the same amount of spring/summer melt to keep the rivers flowing through the dry season. Dry rivers means no fish for food, no water for large animals to drink, so they move elsewhere. No fish or large animals means many people don't eat.

We are damned lucky here in the states to have the agricultural and market systems we have, plus the technology to keep it going. We get peeved at the price of fruit going up, but at least we have food.

[dannyboy]

They did. The IPCC won half the award.
Right, but all of the media attention will undoubtedly go to Gore.

[akip]

but isn't global warming melting the polar ice caps, thereby making more fresh water available to people? [/sarc]

how does global warming affect water availability?

i won't even get into the logical murkiness of your first statement :p , but people need to understand one thing. global warming is not the correct phrase. the correct phrase is CLIMATE CHANGE. some places will be warmer, some colder, some wetter, some drier, but overall weather patterns will become more extreme. the regions who are embroiled in tribal/ethnic conflicts are most often the ones whose environments are already the most fragile.

gwar, baby, you need to read up a little. :p

[dannyboy]

Is the issue that the front-lines guys are getting overlooked in favor of the mouthpiece... or is it that the mouthpiece in question happens to be Al Gore?
Mouthpieces don't generally win the Nobel physics, chemistry, etc. awards.

[akip]

"I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–the world’s pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis–a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years. We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.

My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis."

Yay for Al Gore!


thanks REMgirl.

jointly awarding that prize is most appropriate. kudos to the nobel panel!

[dannyboy]

i won't even get into the logical murkiness of your first statement :p , but people need to understand one thing. global warming is not the correct phrase. the correct phrase is CLIMATE CHANGE. some places will be warmer, some colder, some wetter, some drier, but overall weather patterns will become more extreme. the regions who are embroiled in tribal/ethnic conflicts are most often the ones whose environments are already the most fragile.

gwar, baby, you need to read up a little. :p
I agree that climate change is a real concern. However, the Earth's climate is, will, and has been in a constant state of flux since the dawn of time; long before humans were here and long after we are gone. I still contend that it's such a complex system and humans have been studying for too short of a time to really have a handle on how exactly it works. I saw a program this week about dissolved methane and methane hydrate in the world's oceans that could potentially be a huge player in global warming/climate change and yet its effects are not well known because it's just recently started to be studied in depth.

[Breeze]

Mouthpieces don't generally win the Nobel physics, chemistry, etc. awards.
So again, is it that the mouthpiece guy won... or that that guy is Al Gore?

[gwar469]

"Water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink."

It changes predominant weather patterns. Rain doesn't fall in the same amounts in the same places. Mountains aren't covered with as much snow in the winter, so there isn't the same amount of spring/summer melt to keep the rivers flowing through the dry season. Dry rivers means no fish for food, no water for large animals to drink, so they move elsewhere. No fish or large animals means many people don't eat.

We are damned lucky here in the states to have the agricultural and market systems we have, plus the technology to keep it going. We get peeved at the price of fruit going up, but at least we have food.

do we have enough data to effectively prove that global warming really changes the weather patterns that much? the earth is, what, 6 billion years old? global warming data goes back maybe 100 years, and even then, there is much debate on the data even being correct and correctly applied.

even than, humans used to be nomadic by nature, always chasing water and food. there have always been fights over resources, long before global warming. weather patterns will always change, regardless of humanity's impact.

am i saying global warming doesn't have an impact? no, i'm not. but people do seem to be quick to blame all the current global warming on man-made effects. maybe it's not a bad thing to assume so and to take precautions to try to reduce our carbon footprints, but to act like global warming is 100% fact and pure science is a little extreme.

[Hogarth]

We do have historic data showing how climate change affects temperature. For example, wine grapes were grown in England during Roman times. The Vikings raised cattle in southern Greenland. The difference is the changes are happening rapidly in a more complicated world, and are probably caused by human actions and not natural processes.

[silentpaul]

We do have historic data showing how climate change affects temperature. For example, wine grapes were grown in England during Roman times. The Vikings raised cattle in southern Greenland. The difference is the changes are happening rapidly in a more complicated world, and are probably caused by human actions and not natural processes.
On top of that, there are millions more humans sucking up resources, and less land for them to spread out into...

akip is right, "climate change" is a more accurate phrase and conception than "global warming"...

[the happy prole]

Why shouldn't the mouthpiece win? It's not an award for suffering, or for science. I wish it were, but it isn't. The Committee obviously felt like Global Warming was sort of the central theme for the Peace Prize. So you have the prize split between some scientist-types who do more of the dirty work but also publicize the issue, and one guy who built off some of that and did a lot to advance the issue. Did anyone expect that Inconvenient Truth would have the impact it did?

And Gore has dedicated his life these last few years towards public awareness of this issue. He's a rich dude. He could simply retire and do nothing. But this is an issue he genuinely cares about. Yeah, the some of the science is wonky. No, he's hardly suffering in some third world country pouring every last cent into planting trees with aborigines.

I don't think he deserves it. Nor does the IPCC for that matter. I think the Peace Prize should be given to individuals who do something truly special and sacrifice themselves a la Mother Theresa. But that's not the way it works. The committee wanted to highlight a cause; they picked Global Warming. When the average person thinks about Global Warming, Gore's name comes up.

[CarloMarx]

grr.

I'd say I'll stick to caring about the Nobel prize in Literature, but that was a fucking joke this year too. Fuckin ridiculous.

He's worse than bono. Seriously - he's been a selfrighteous prick for the last 4 years who hasnt ever passed up a chance to make it clear that the election was stolen from him.
Fuckin' get over it. I dont like the president either but we've got a year left. You want to bitch about it ? Run for office again.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Al_Gore_on_Futurama.JPG

[akip]

We do have historic data showing how climate change affects temperature. For example, wine grapes were grown in England during Roman times. The Vikings raised cattle in southern Greenland. The difference is the changes are happening rapidly in a more complicated world, and are probably caused by human actions and not natural processes.

exactly. and in a more complicated world, you can get sucked into the problems of people half a globe away who are pissed off.

[Sushi]

grr.

I'd say I'll stick to caring about the Nobel prize in Literature, but that was a fucking joke this year too. Fuckin ridiculous.


What have you got against Doris Lessing, son?

[clonE]

I agree that climate change is a real concern. However, the Earth's climate is, will, and has been in a constant state of flux since the dawn of time; long before humans were here and long after we are gone. I still contend that it's such a complex system and humans have been studying for too short of a time to really have a handle on how exactly it works. I saw a program this week about dissolved methane and methane hydrate in the world's oceans that could potentially be a huge player in global warming/climate change and yet its effects are not well known because it's just recently started to be studied in depth.


I saw the same piece on PBS. I had previously heard of the methane hydrates in terms of if their potential to be released into the atmosphere, which could or would be pretty bad.

The recent show talked about using them for power, since they were super-compressed chunks of methane. Made me think of dilithium crystals (clearly I've seen too much star trek)

[WonderBoy]

Al Gore invented global warming... thats all you need to do... make up a something that is going to destroy the world :cool:

i used the smiley with the sunglasses because the extreme sun/heat due to global warming is hurting my eyes.

[gwar469]

gwar, baby, you need to read up a little. :p

how'd i overlook this gem?!

akip, i'm an engineer, and as such, i cannot be bothered to read words. i'd rather be inundated with numbers and other symbols than when combined, do not forms words. maybe if you have some documentation i could read in the form of binary code? :D ;) :p

[silentpaul]

Al Gore invented global warming... thats all you need to do... make up a something that is going to destroy the world :cool:

i used the smiley with the sunglasses because the extreme sun/heat due to global warming is hurting my eyes.
The future's so bright you gotta wear shades?

[akip]

how'd i overlook this gem?!

akip, i'm an engineer, and as such, i cannot be bothered to read words. i'd rather be inundated with numbers and other symbols than when combined, do not forms words. maybe if you have some documentation i could read in the form of binary code? :D ;) :p

well, maybe i could find some little pamphlet with flow charts. :D

[the_birds]

The concept of weather and climate change and Global Warming is so complicated it will always be hard to quantify actual scientifically measurable Macro-climatic changes, proving Global Warming.

But I believe humans are quantifiably affecting the planet in so many ways, at some point you are going to have an unassailable Macro-climatic result "out of nowhere."

Gradually, the skeptics' points about it the changes like Polar ice shrinkage and affects on migratory birds and fish stocks being normal are being eroded, because of the simultaneous occurances. Changes are afoot. When they become obvious to everyone, it will be too late.

Really though, Humans could F'up the planet and all we would really need is one big Volcanic eruption and it will mask the effects of Global Warming for 5 or 10 years maybe more.

[gwar469]

well, maybe i could find some little pamphlet with flow charts. :D

now you're talking my language, sister! :cool:

[Breeze]

Really though, Humans could F'up the planet and all we would really need is one big Volcanic eruption and it will mask the effects of Global Warming for 5 or 10 years maybe more.
Bet you could win all kinds of awards if you could make that happen. :p

[akip]

Bet you could win all kinds of awards if you could make that happen. :p

we should ALL get a medal. :)

[Breeze]

we should ALL get a medal. :)
I was leaning more toward getting the eruption to happen, but medals for basic ineptitude... sure, why not? Me, Paul Bremer, and Tommy Franks. :p

[dannyboy]

I saw the same piece on PBS. I had previously heard of the methane hydrates in terms of if their potential to be released into the atmosphere, which could or would be pretty bad.

The recent show talked about using them for power, since they were super-compressed chunks of methane. Made me think of dilithium crystals (clearly I've seen too much star trek)
Actually, the show I saw was on Discovery and it featured a proposed theory by one renegade researcher that a mass release of oceanic methane caused the last major extinction. The show did discuss the potential of methane hydrates in the ocean as a power source. To put it in perspective, the underground deposits of methane in the U.S. can provide us with a 70 year natual gas supply. Methane hydrate in the oceans could provide the U.S. with a 70,000 year natural gas supply. Methane is 25% more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, so with that much methane locked up in the oceans you can see why it is potentially alarming.

[akip]

I was leaning more toward getting the eruption to happen, but medals for basic ineptitude... sure, why not? Me, Paul Bremer, and Tommy Franks. :p

mabye if we all crank up our furnaces and air conditioners at the same time and run them really hard....

[jneale]

mabye if we all crank up our furnaces and air conditioners at the same time and run them really hard....
I think it is gonna happen just from all the co-workers of mine who decided to go off estrogen this year.

[akip]

I think it is gonna happen just from all the co-workers of mine who decided to go off estrogen this year.

:D :D :D :D :D

a man who knows.

[Breeze]

I think it is gonna happen just from all the co-workers of mine who decided to go off estrogen this year.
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/n28/n141191.jpg

[BigSugar]

he's going to keep it in a loooooooooock box next to his Oscar and Emmy..... ;)

The Nobel Prize for Peace is neither relevant, nor influential, in the world at large....it's the Miss USA of peace pagents......Good for Al for doing whatever it is he does to get himself the award. He said he's going to donate the money to the effort to stop global warming.....i'm assuming that means he's going to give the money to his own 501c3 that pays his salary, his jet fuel bills, his mortgages and his utility bills at his various 10,000 square foot homes he rarely stays in......LOL!

my thing about Al is that you can't scream about others raping the environment when you have your dick stuck squarely in mother natures hoo-ha. other than that, bully for him.

[clonE]

Actually, the show I saw was on Discovery and it featured a proposed theory by one renegade researcher that a mass release of oceanic methane caused the last major extinction. The show did discuss the potential of methane hydrates in the ocean as a power source. To put it in perspective, the underground deposits of methane in the U.S. can provide us with a 70 year natual gas supply. Methane hydrate in the oceans could provide the U.S. with a 70,000 year natural gas supply. Methane is 25% more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, so with that much methane locked up in the oceans you can see why it is potentially alarming.


Different points to the different shows but the energy/supply math is the same.

[silentpaul]

http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/n28/n141191.jpg
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/08/02/whoopi_wideweb__470x314,0.jpg

[Breeze]

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/08/02/whoopi_wideweb__470x314,0.jpg
http://dvinfo.net/images/wranglers.jpg

[Buzzstein]

By all means let's wait around for all the data to come in before deciding to do anything. We know that the climate is definitely changing and it's bad for the human race. I think we should try to do something about it. Even if we can't we should try. Really I hope that we are mostly responsible for global warming. We would be much more likely to be able to fix the problem.

[the_birds]

Really I hope that we are mostly responsible for global warming. We would be much more likely to be able to rationalize the problem and screw up the planet for further human habitiability.

Fixed that for you,

Sincerely
Dick Cheney

[dannyboy]

By all means let's wait around for all the data to come in before deciding to do anything. We know that the climate is definitely changing and it's bad for the human race. I think we should try to do something about it. Even if we can't we should try. Really I hope that we are mostly responsible for global warming. We would be much more likely to be able to fix the problem.
Humans have a God complex. They WANT to be able to change the Earth, either for good or bad. The scarier proposition is if global warming is not a result of human causes, because that just means we're being taken on a ride towards our demise that we can do nothing about.

[bestlaidplans]

Humans have a God complex. They WANT to be able to change the Earth, either for good or bad. The scarier proposition is if global warming is not a result of human causes, because that just means we're being taken on a ride towards our demise that we can do nothing about.
Or we could be just delaying the inevitable next ice age which has a lot to do with the continents current locations. People need to get it out of their heads that the Earth is an absolutely perfect place for humanity to live, it isn't. A good chunk of this planet is already barely habitable and in all likelihood we're living in a small window (relatively speaking) of comfortable climate in which we can thrive.

[ianalex10]

So they've passed up Ghandi, Edison, and Tesla and they give one to Jimmy Carter and now Al Gore?

[ianalex10]

he's going to keep it in a loooooooooock box next to his Oscar and Emmy..... ;)

The Nobel Prize for Peace is neither relevant, nor influential, in the world at large....it's the Miss USA of peace pagents......Good for Al for doing whatever it is he does to get himself the award. He said he's going to donate the money to the effort to stop global warming.....i'm assuming that means he's going to give the money to his own 501c3 that pays his salary, his jet fuel bills, his mortgages and his utility bills at his various 10,000 square foot homes he rarely stays in......LOL!

my thing about Al is that you can't scream about others raping the environment when you have your dick stuck squarely in mother natures hoo-ha. other than that, bully for him.



Ah, but Al buys carbon credits to maintain carbon neutrality.

The only problem is that he buys them from Generation Investment Management, a company that he owns and chairs.

Is there a Nobel prize for hypocrisy?

Check this out:

http://newsbusters.org/node/11149

[the happy prole]

Yeah, but get this: I heard a rumor that when George Bush was a private citizen, he was a Texas Rangers fan. He went so far as to go to Texas Rangers games. And he owned the team!!!

HE WAS GETTING RICH BUYING CONCESSIONS AT A BALLPARK FOR A TEAM HE OWNED!!!! ZOMG!

That's not all, either. I heard that Steve Jobs thinks Apple computers are pretty nifty, and he uses them himself. AND HE OWNS THE COMPANY!!

Gore purchases carbon credits. He owns a holding company that invests in companies that trade carbon credits. The nerve of the guy to tell people they should invest in green technologies and then actually doing it himself. I can't imagine anything more hypocritical.

[Hogarth]

Humans have a God complex. They WANT to be able to change the Earth, either for good or bad. The scarier proposition is if global warming is not a result of human causes, because that just means we're being taken on a ride towards our demise that we can do nothing about.

The available science, provided by the commission that shares Gore's award, says that climate change is the result of human activity, to a very high degree. The only reason its report didn't say the probability was 100% was due to changes instituted by the governments of China and the United States, who have political, not scientific, reasons to object.

The vast majority of climate scientists agree with this conclusion. In fact, after the UN report came out, Exxon-Mobil sent out offers to pay scientists to critizise the report, and there were few takers. The evidence of human induced warming is growing, and there is little counter-evidence. Putting carbon in the air causes warming. The only question left is what are we going to do about it.

[akip]

give up, hogarth. stating the obvious gets one nowhere around here. :p

[Hogarth]

give up, hogarth. stating the obvious gets one nowhere around here. :p

Sorry, I forgot.

It was the benedryl talking, I swear.

[dannyboy]

The available science, provided by the commission that shares Gore's award, says that climate change is the result of human activity, to a very high degree. The only reason its report didn't say the probability was 100% was due to changes instituted by the governments of China and the United States, who have political, not scientific, reasons to object.

The vast majority of climate scientists agree with this conclusion. In fact, after the UN report came out, Exxon-Mobil sent out offers to pay scientists to critizise the report, and there were few takers. The evidence of human induced warming is growing, and there is little counter-evidence. Putting carbon in the air causes warming. The only question left is what are we going to do about it.
So that comission just magically eliminated oceanic methane as a source before it's ever really been studied? I'm not ready to drink the kool aid just yet. How many humans are producing greenhouse gas on Mars? The martian polar caps are melting too.

[REMgirl]

I love the Rude Pundit. This is from www.rudepundit.blogspot.com today:

Now that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize (along with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the clearest difference between the former vice president and the current president is placed into even starker relief. In essence, Gore has elevated the world as a whole above the United States as a single entity within it. George W. Bush has placed the United States above the world. And Gore's non-electoral ascension, concomitant as it has been with Bush's descent into the miasma of low poll numbers and a destroyed party and disgrace in the world, reveals just how untenable the Bush position is: a nation can no longer succeed in this world unless its ultimate goal is to be part of the world.

Or, to put it another way, Gore won. Again. When the books are written, in the long-term histories of this and other countries, Al Gore will be cherished and George Bush will be crushed like so much real manure on a fake ranch. Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize does in Bush's seeming obsession with his legacy. And that's due in no small part to the smallness of Bush's thinking compared to the expansiveness of Gore's.

The Bush administration's foreign policy can perhaps be described as interventionist isolationism. In other words, sure, sure, the United States'll invade other countries and create open trade and other actions, but the ultimate goals of those efforts are not to improve the world or the lot of other people. If that's a by-product of the action, then, sure, hell, at least that provides cover for what is, at root, self-interest and greed and the bald assertion of power to the end of propagating further self-interest and greed. Yeah, yeah, every nation's foreign policy has a degree of self-interest. It has to. But for the United States under the Bush regime, it is the primary, if not the sole, consideration, no matter what lies they tell about planting seeds of democracy or some such nonsense.

Back in 2000, because we didn't riot in the streets and shut down the country in the wake of the presidential election debacle, the nation essentially abandoned Al Gore. And while Al Gore didn't totally abandon the nation, he turned his focus to the effort to demonstrate that real leadership need not emanate from the false mandate of a corrupted electoral process. In his crusade for action on climate change, Gore not only remade himself, but he remade the way in which people think about the world at large. Here was not just a cause confined to a specific continent (like African hunger) or a fight against a tyrant like Hitler to catalyze large portions of the population. Here was a way of thinking of the Earth as a whole, a way of seeing the interdependence of each country, of each population, and Gore has shifted a generation's view of itself as part of something larger.

The great failure of the United States to lead on this issue, to be the place where we create solutions that benefit the globe, keep economies humming, and raise humanity up in a way that might, truly, do more for peace than all the pre-emptive wars ever, rests squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush and his administration.

It's the difference between a man who traveled and studied the world by choice in his life and a man who has to be dragged to different countries like a particularly incontinent dog is dragged out to the sidewalk on a snowy day.

Gore's not gonna run. Give that up. To go from speaking out about melting icecaps to being asked what he thinks about, say, a flag-burning amendment would be a degradation of what he's worked for the last six years. And had that statewide recount in Florida happened and Gore had become president, Republicans would have simply worked night and day trying to destroy him, and his causes would have been washed away in a tide of worthless investigations of Buddhist monk phone calls and worse. And let's not even get into how Republicans would have exploded in berserk, ape-like rage over 9/11 if it had happened under a Gore presidency.

It's not that we're not worthy or that he's too good for us or any of that hyperbolic nonsense. We got the president we deserved, twice, and we realized too late that we didn't get the president we needed. As with so many things, our own temptation to that latent American selfishness has done us in.

// posted by Rude One @ 10:20 AM| DiggIt!| Del.icio.us|

[Captain Obvious]

give up, hogarth. stating the obvious gets one nowhere around here. :p



>>>>>>>>>>>>>whoosh

Humans contribute to climate change.

My work here is done. (where's my fucking Nobel Peace Prize?)


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<whoosh

[dannyboy]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>whoosh

Humans contribute to climate change.

My work here is done. (where's my fucking Nobel Peace Prize?)


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<whoosh
At least one dissenter (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."


--------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if you're not well received by your peers, does that make you less of a scientist?

[Captain Obvious]

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, "Abdussamatov said.

>>>>>>>>whoosh

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t91/CaptainObvious_2007/It2.jpg


My work here is done.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<whoosh

[Breeze]

So, if you're not well received by your peers, does that make you less of a scientist?
I take it you see no difference at all between causing climate change and contributing to climate change?

[dannyboy]

I take it you see no difference at all between causing climate change and contributing to climate change?
But what is the ratio? If we somehow manage to eliminate all human contribution to greenhouse warming, will greenhouse warming stop? will it slow? will it continue to rise, but at a slower pace? will it continue to rise with no appreciable difference?

[Breeze]

But what is the ratio? If we somehow manage to eliminate all human contribution to greenhouse warming, will greenhouse warming stop? will it slow? will it continue to rise, but at a slower pace? will it continue to rise with no appreciable difference?
Unless you can answer that last question definitively in the affirmative, what reason would you have to oppose efforts to curb human contributions to climate change?

[Hogarth]

At the very least, human activity is like injecting nitrous in your cylinders. You're accellerating the process so that the environment, and the life forms in it, struggle to adapt.

The Mars comment is, for lack of a better term, ignorant. I hope I don't hurt your feelings, dannyboy, but, jeez. Mars has a CO2 atmosphere because it has no life. Duh! It's apples and oranges.

Climate change does happen for natural reasons, but there's no reason to throw gas on the fire.

[dannyboy]

My biggest concern is that the overwhelming majority of the scientific and political community gets on the bandwagon that humans are causing global warming (which it apparently has) and there is a MUCH bigger contributor to it, either naturally occuring here on Earth or cosmically, and less resources are devoted to studying alternatives than there should be because everyone's collective minds have been made up already. The consequences are still the same whether we created the problem or nature has.

[dannyboy]

The Mars comment is, for lack of a better term, ignorant. I hope I don't hurt your feelings, dannyboy, but, jeez.


You didn't hurt my feelings and you probably didn't hurt Habibullo Abdussamatov's feelings either. Just in the same way that I'm sure your feelings aren't hurt when GW Bush says you for the terrorists.

[the happy prole]

So, if you're not well received by your peers, does that make you less of a scientist?

umm, yeah. Peer review is a fundamental part of the scientific research.

Sometimes there really is one guy right and everyone else wrong. And you can never eliminate bias from the process. So, it's possible that guy could be right. It's possible that evolution hasn't happened, too. I mean there's always dissent among the scientific (or people who claim to be scientists) community.

But it's funny to me how so many people who otherwise know jackshit about science and who walk around everyday relying on the findings of scientific research suddenly-- on this one issue-- are not only expert climatologists but suddenly distrustful of science itself.

[akip]

there are also total jackasses who write long, detailed books full of "proof" denying the holocaust, which already fucking happened, bodies found. so people will dispute anything and they'll inevitably convince the constituency who is invested in believing them.

[Buzzstein]

I think we should be doing anything and everything possible to try to survive as a species. That includes finding a way to get off this planet and live in space or on some other rock; working on ways to adapt to climate change; and trying to stop or reduce climate change (whether we are a factor or not). Just because climate change may be happening without our influence doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent it. And I don't care whether we can actually do something about it or not. I'm just saying we should try. I don't see what's wrong with that.

[akip]

if you buy into what the majority of scientists are saying, from what i understand, there's a relatively short window of time where it's possible to offset the acceleration of climate change, beyond which it's pretty much done. but i really don't think we'll rise to the occasion.

[clonE]

I think we should be doing anything and everything possible to try to survive as a species. That includes finding a way to get off this planet and live in space or on some other rock; working on ways to adapt to climate change; and trying to stop or reduce climate change (whether we are a factor or not). Just because climate change may be happening without our influence doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent it. And I don't care whether we can actually do something about it or not. I'm just saying we should try. I don't see what's wrong with that.


Hawking went on record saying the same thing, humans need to spread out if we are to survive. after all, won't our sun take out our planet someday?

I don't neccessarily believe humans have a huge impact on the climate change, but its pretty much the only variable we can affect. It also makes sense to me to diversify our energy sources as a matter national security, reduce particulates and other emissions to have a cleaner planet and simply use less energy so it goes farther.

What's so wrong about clean air and increased efficiency from diverse sources?

there's no profit in it for the big coal and oil companies?

[Buzzstein]

if you buy into what the majority of scientists are saying, from what i understand, there's a relatively short window of time where it's possible to offset the acceleration of climate change, beyond which it's pretty much done. but i really don't think we'll rise to the occasion.

Yeah probably not. We will most likely have to genetically and mechanically engineer ourselves to withstand the climate change. In the future our descendents will be part robot and have exoskeletons and be able to breathe greenhouse gases. That would be cool!

[akip]

Yeah probably not. We will most likely have to genetically and mechanically engineer ourselves to withstand the climate change. In the future our descendents will be part robot and have exoskeletons and be able to breathe greenhouse gases.

my sweet little mutant grandchildren!

[purdueman_in]

Man did I just lose a lot of respect for the Nobel committee.

Yes, how embarrassing that there is a governing body that understands that global warming is occurring, and that we need to do something about it.

Geez, mark, even Bush is coming around to the realization about global warming. I wouldn't brag about not getting it before Bush...

[tobedawg]

Again, what sacrifice did Al Gore make for peace? Having to fly all over in his private jet? Making money off a movie? Spending time in jail? Organizing a labor movement to overthrow a communist regime? What?

Markalot makes an Excellent Point!

Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize is complete bullshit.. and makes me wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize is ACTUALLY awarded to people that have gone the distance to attempt to create a difference in the world, OR if it's just one HUGE popularity contest..

What Al Gore presented in his hour and a half snooze fest of a film is NOTHING new or unique.. The theory of Global Warming (which I happen to believe by the way), has been touted by enviornmentalists for over a decade, but all of a sudden a former Vice President who did relatively little to PREVENT Global Warming during his 8 year stint as Clinton's right hand man in the White House (Also Note that it was Clinton who signed off on NAFTA and on less regulation on Sports Utility Vehicles creating much of this Global Warming) is suddenly in comparrison to Gandhi and Mother Teresa? Is it because the Media has touted him as a Celebrity over the past couple of years? or the Democratic and liberal establishment has ran out of ideas and are standing behind this has been who lost the 2000 Election (which I believe was stolen by Bush but Gore failed ONCE AGAIN to stand behind any convictions and acted upon his own self interests).. Gore is a self-absorbed attention loving whore, nothing more.. (Hey that flowed!)

[miami2112]

So they've passed up Ghandi, Edison, and Tesla and they give one to Jimmy Carter and now Al Gore?
nobels are only awarded to those who are still living.

i've given up debating the climate change with the naysayers. one friend of mine pisses all over gore, and the science behind human accelerated climate change, he even argues with most of the premise of the oft quoted guns,germs and steel, and the follow up "collapse" - without having read the book, and all but claims a political/science "conspiracy" for climate change, yet still believes that wmd's were in iraq, where there is no evidence for their existance.

these folks seem to pick and choose when to "believe" science. i'm tired of trying to explain. my new strategy: human activity causes pollution. pollution is bad. we should eliminate as much of our pollution as possible. its the right thing to do. and then whip out this pict:
http://www.agservmedia.com/brimley.jpg
game. set. match. cant argue with that, or the overflowing grey chest hair will get you!

[ThomasC]

my new strategy: human activity causes pollution. pollution is bad. we should eliminate as much of our pollution as possible.
That's why I don't plan to have kids. But the way my social life is going, that won't be too hard... :p :(

[clonE]

Markalot makes an Excellent Point!

Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize is complete bullshit.. and makes me wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize is ACTUALLY awarded to people that have gone the distance to attempt to create a difference in the world, OR if it's just one HUGE popularity contest..

What Al Gore presented in his hour and a half snooze fest of a film is NOTHING new or unique.. The theory of Global Warming (which I happen to believe by the way), has been touted by enviornmentalists for over a decade, but all of a sudden a former Vice President who did relatively little to PREVENT Global Warming during his 8 year stint as Clinton's right hand man in the White House (Also Note that it was Clinton who signed off on NAFTA and on less regulation on Sports Utility Vehicles creating much of this Global Warming) is suddenly in comparrison to Gandhi and Mother Teresa? Is it because the Media has touted him as a Celebrity over the past couple of years? or the Democratic and liberal establishment has ran out of ideas and are standing behind this has been who lost the 2000 Election (which I believe was stolen by Bush but Gore failed ONCE AGAIN to stand behind any convictions and acted upon his own self interests).. Gore is a self-absorbed attention loving whore, nothing more.. (Hey that flowed!)

I'll give you:

NAFTA was passed by Clinton/Gore, and is bad
Gore didn't fight MUCH for the 2000 election (but the media was against him rather than impartial)
Climate Change isn't new, and wasn't when Gore POPULARIZED it. Getting the attention of the masses is somewhat hard to do, especially on a sustainable basis.
The 'appropriateness' of the Peace prize has probably been dubious since Arafat shared with 2 others in 1994.

I won't agree that the media has recently made Gore a celebrity. Being a Senator and VP, the 2000 election debacle, his very successful documentary (didn't see it) and Emmy, and persistent arguments to raise awareness of CC have all contributed to his celebrity.

Maybe there's even a little bit of guilt among the MSM (mainstream media) for giving him such unfair treatment for so long. Quotes were constantly taken out of context and their implications exaggerated so much (Someone on here even said Gore created Global Warming, an obvious reference to "Gore created the Internet," which in truth was a comment much more like "I recognized and/or suspected the potential impact and importance of darpanet and what it could lead to that I was a vocal supporter of the project." Perhaps the MSM, much like their tendency to promote the right wing so as not to appear liberal, is overcorrecting for their shameful past.

Didn't he write 'Earth in the Balance' while VP? Arguably, he could have what, given speeches instead? I don't think the VP can introduce bills or veto bills, so the VP's power is limited (unless you're a Dick). In his last years in the White House, he was quite probably distracted by the political consequences of a bunch of adulterous Republicans prosecuting his boss for lying under oath about committing adultery(cheating on a woman that rightwingers like to characterize as a man no less!).

Gore's an alright guy, I hope he doesn't run but I hope he continues what he's working for. at the very least we can raise mpg, can't we?

PS. I've got to send a HUGE thank you to whoever commented earlier about the 'hypocrisy' of Gore buying green credits through his own company. Jobs uses Apples, Gates uses PCs, and Bush/Cheney use Halliburton, yet for some reason none of that is hypocritical?

[bestlaidplans]

my new strategy: human activity causes pollution. pollution is bad. we should eliminate as much of our pollution as possible. its the right thing to do.
Does that mean Stalin was like, one the greatest environmentalists ever? :D We could be making the air cleaner and giving natural selection a little nudge forward!

[DaHood]

Just make sure you kill all the animals before we kill ourselves. Start with the cows. You know, methane belching and all that bad shit.

[monkey neck]

Why didn't scientists/reseachers out on the front lines collecting and analyzing data get this award instead of the highly visible mouthpiece?


Yeah, that's like Al Gore winning the "I Created the Internet" award, too.

*Sorry if this has already been said, but I'm not wading through 6 pages to check.

[markalot]

I didn't say he deserved the Nobel prize, I said he deserved A prize.

What a silly thing to say.

[akip]

Does that mean Stalin was like, one the greatest environmentalists ever? :D We could be making the air cleaner and giving natural selection a little nudge forward!

hate to say it but yeah. problem is really too many people. but having said that, i ain't goin'.

[REMgirl]

I think there are a lot of correlations between Bush and Gore in this incident. If you go back to the first George Bush, he accused Gore of being crazy, calling him Ozone Man or something derogatory like that. See, global warming isn't just the cause of the hour. Gore has been dedicated to it for decades.

Then Junior George comes along and with his administration, decries global warming, has scientists tamper with evidence so the results are skewed, and pays their own scientists to disavow any proof that climate change is happening. Until recently, Bush wouldn't acknowledge that it was a possible threat.

On a personal note, it's no secret that I think Bush is a terrible president. I suppose that makes me a Bush-basher, but he gives us so many opportunities to do it. ;) And frankly, when I see Al Gore winning awards for his work, doing positive things for the country via international relations, hell, when I hear Gore give a speech, I want to cry because he could have been our President. He SHOULD have been our President.

[Sushi]

Didn't he write 'Earth in the Balance' while VP?
Published in 1992. I recall that he also wrote the preface to a collection of environmental essays by various celebrities that came out in late 1990 or early 1991 (I have a copy somewhere). The environment and climate change has been a key issue for Gore for quite a long time.

The Nobel is well deserved.

(By the way, Gore never said, "I invented the Internet.") (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp)

[REMgirl]

Aw jeeesus, here we go again.

Little teen-crush or not, Al Gore is a horrendous politician and you can't possibly be blind to that fact. He rode his daddy's coattails into the Senate, Bill Clinton's into the upper echelons of power, and now, when he has a tremendous amount of momentum, instead of sticking it to Hilary, will sit this round out. He's definitely got a little George W. Bush in him.

You have to know that none of his accomplishments, however worthy/worthless they are, would have been possible should he have won THE election, right?



I say we give Al the Nobel Peace Prize for inventing the Internet as it has become a remarkable outlet for oppressed citizenry who can relate their tales of torture and tasing (bro!) to a shocked global community and then, a decade from now when he's fixed global warming, give him ANOTHER peace prize.

I want my children's children to have to answer the following question on the SAT:

Archie Griffin is to the Heisman Trophy as Al Gore is to:

a) Academy Award
b) Emmy Award
c) Nobel Peace Prize
d) ALL OF THE ABOVE

My, you're crabby today.

Gore has a good record, starting with graduating from Harvard with honors and being re-elected to Congress three times, Daddy's coattails or not. At least he served in Congress and the Senate before seeking higher office. He has a lot of service and work on committees, too, and he taught at four different universities after his Presidential bid.

Unfortunately we'll never know what he might have accomplished as President. Even if he had, the Republicans would have spent billions to discredit and disrupt his term. That's why he isn't running again. Why subject yourself to a bombardment of political crap flinging when you can do good work on the outside? But he would have been better than what we got.

(little teen crush) ;)

[miami2112]

meh. whatever. gore seems to be a decent fellow who is doing what he thinks is right. i've got no problem with that. or with a nobel prize.

for the bashers - quiz:
without googling, who won the last three peace prizes? how about last years?

[miami2112]

Aw jeeesus, here we go again.

Little teen-crush or not, Al Gore is a horrendous politician and you can't possibly be blind to that fact. He rode his daddy's coattails into the Senate, Bill Clinton's into the upper echelons of power, and now, when he has a tremendous amount of momentum, instead of sticking it to Hilary, will sit this round out. He's definitely got a little George W. Bush in him.
oh the irony...

and arent all politicians self-serving pricks?

[Orville Wrong]

I believe this will be recognized in 20 years as the high-water mark of the global warming hysteria movement -- and only three months after the world's greatest, noblest rock show that no one attended and can even remember the name of.

[REMgirl]

It was nice of you to apologize, Suntzu. :)

[monkey neck]

(By the way, Gore never said, "I invented the Internet.")

If I give you that, you have to give me "Bush never said Saddam was behind 9/11".

There's a "simular" concept at work there. ;)

[tobedawg]

I assume the NAFTA reference has to do with the the concern environmentalists had over lack of regulation in Mexico and the concern that companies would move there to escape environmental regulation. Hmmm, as it turns out, it didn't really work out like that. The real exodus was to China, which under the current administration holds an even more esteemed position with even less oversight than was provided by the NAFTA treaty.

The abundence of manufacturing and little oversight in China is obvious, but the real issue at hand is Gore's "Enviornmental" Record. I find something wrong with a man who is touted as a "Nobel Prize Winning enviornmentalist" and having a Free trade deal that allows Mexicans trucks into the U.S. releasing a great deal of air pollution happen on your watch a bit inconsistent.


Could you elaborate why you think Gore won but failed to stand behind his convictions? I think taking your case to the Supreme Court is about as decisive as it gets. You seem to hold him in such low regard, but this is the guy who actually beat George Bush in the popular vote and came close to winning the electoral. Hardly the loser you picture

Nope.. Sorry Gore WAS the Loser in 2000. He may have taken his case to the Supreme Court but he didn't fight for the Florida recount. He didn't fight for the disenfranchised black voters in Florida who had their names taken off of the voter rolls, he didn't stand up for those people that compromised their vote for Nader to vote for him (myself included). If he really cared about democracy he wouldn't have wiped his ass with the ballots of those that voted for him in 2000.


And as far as attention getting whore, I hardly think that is appropriate either. If you observe him over the last few years, except for stumping for a cause most people didn't consider that important until the last couple of years, it's not like he's been exactly high profile. Oh except for the time 6 months before the Iraq invasion where he came out and said it would be a bad idea. And was vilified for it over the succeeding year by every neocon with a slot on Fox News, If you recall, public approval for the war was high. Very unprincipled to take a minority stand like that. Consider the fact that even up until recently a lot of Dem's would have liked to have seen him take another run. His recent comments were that he's really not that much of a campaigner, and that he's happy doing what he does now. And his actions have pretty much borne this out.

He came out against the war at a time though when it was convenient to do so. The Dixie Chicks fiasco had already happened, other people, like Pope John Paul had spoken out against the war already. When Gore came out against the war, he was once again showing the type of opportunist that he is. His true Colors.

The guy is not perfect. He's a politician. No one operates in that business and gets anywhere by being anything other than a pragmatist at the critical points. But he IS a smart guy, a thoughtful guy. And if you look around there is a critical shortage of those attributes in the world at large and here in particular. It is instructive to see that David Brooks, staunch economic conservative columnist for the NY Times (and formerly the Wall Street Journal), engages in none of the vituperation I am observing from other quarters. Had a lot of nice things to say about Gore on his News Hour segment tonight. Tune in if you can handle it - it's online. Might find it instructive. Most people who are actually familiar with the facts are aware that Gore is basically a good guy whose heart is in the right place.

Al Gore IS a thoughtful guy. He thinks of an opportunity that will get his name in newspapers.


There is a scene in Ferris Bueller's day off where Jennifer Gray is sitting next to Charley Sheen in the principal's office. She is going on and on about how big a problem her brother is, getting away with this, getting away with that. Sheen looks at her and tells her that her brother isn't her problem. SHE is her problem. Sorry bud. It ain't Al. It's you

HA HA! With a response as passionate as yours, I can't help but wonder if you are on the man's payroll.

Aside from that, I guess I do have a problem. I have a problem when people like Al Gore are being compared to the likes of people who have actually STRUGGLED and fought for peaceful causes around the globe. Having Al Gore win based on a documentary he did about Global Warming is like if George W Bush were to win the prize for bringing peace to the middle east.

There were many more deserving people that should have received a Nobel Peace Prize but Gore won based on his name recognition (well that and the biasedly liberal nobel panel as of late).

[Ambassador V3.0]

A man truly deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize is one of my old bosses (MANY years ago), "Ebeneezer", who is a lawyer (or 'attorney', if you will) from NKY. I believe he plans to start a Pro Bono program soon, with all proceeds donated towards the founding of an orphanage. "I don't care too much about the money, I just wanna help out the kids." I plan to be in Stockholm as the great man accepts this well deserved honor. :p

[akip]

You know, it may just me, but reading this makes me believe your expectations of someone who is running for office are so far beyond what a reasonable person would have that is is virtually impossible ...

i get this feeling about more than one person around here and more than about just politics. :p i find the attitude strangely naive, despite all the skepticism.

[markalot]

It's true, in order to support Al Gore you have to lower your expectations.

[gwar469]

These Swedes are shills for big government, plain and simple.

and to think it all started with this guy.

http://farm.tucows.com/2004/12/swedish_chef.jpg

[silentpaul]

and to think it all started with this guy.

http://farm.tucows.com/2004/12/swedish_chef.jpg
Maybe that's why they make such delicious meatballs...

[purdueman_in]

Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize is shameful. As soon as I heard about it I thought, "Why not give Michael Moore the Nobel Peace Prize in economics for Sicko?" And then I saw who they gave it to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/world/16nobel.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

These Swedes are shills for big government, plain and simple. "Mechanism design theory" is a way for central planners to justify messing with markets...a truly despicable "ends justifying the means" buffoonery masked as egalitarianism.


Yup. Shameful to give the Nobel to someone who has raised awareness over what may be the greatest threat of our day. Wars throughout history have been fought over resources, and this has the very real change of causing wars around the planet for this very reason.

[purdueman_in]

I've noticed, from this board, from chatting with my father and his friends, and from the Indianapolis Star - nothing gets a neo-cons panties in a bind faster than a liberal - especially a liberal leader - being given any positive recognition.

[Orville Wrong]

I've noticed, from this board, from chatting with my father and his friends, and from the Indianapolis Star - nothing gets a neo-cons panties in a bind faster than a liberal - especially a liberal leader - being given any positive recognition.
Neocons ARE liberals.

[Shlep]

Yup. Shameful to give the Nobel to someone who has raised awareness over what may be the greatest threat of our day.

You ain't kidding.

It's bad enough already that I occasionally find myself obliged to sit around and endure some sanctimonious blow-hard giving a long, meandering, over-blown PowerPoint presentation at work; that's typically a part of my job.

But when this sort of thing begins to spread outward, like a plague of locusts...really, really goofy locusts with lazy fact-checkers, that is...it's time to put our collective foot down.

We *MUST* think of the children!

Wars throughout history have been fought over resources, and this has the very real change of causing wars around the planet for this very reason.

If the worlds' net exporters of stratospheric ozone and glacial ice insist on continuing the selfish and self-serving practice artificially manipulating prices in the global marketplace and/or using them as a cudgel to cowe client nations, then they're just bringing on themsevles charges outrageous prices

[seafoamgreen]

Neocons ARE liberals.

except that you don't enjoy Eskimo poetry

[classicgrrl]

I think I should win the Nobel for being here for 8 years.

or maybe the board should win?

:confused:

[Shlep]

maybe i'm a little slow, but what does talking about Global Warming even have to with "peace"?

It puts people to sleep, which makes them peaceful.

I've noticed, from this board, from chatting with my father and his friends, and from the Indianapolis Star - nothing gets a neo-cons panties in a bind faster than a liberal - especially a liberal leader - being given any positive recognition.

I'm sure if Dan Quayle was given the Nobel Prize in Physiology, liberals would be taking him downtown at this very moment and buying him Jello shots and lapdances.

Kind of ironic in that Bjorn Lomborg is kind of the mirror image of Gore.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/My_Fair_Lady_64.jpg

"Bjorn Lomborg is a mirror of Gore."
"By George, he's got it! By George, he's got it!"
"Now, once again: Who's Bjorn?"
"Bjorn Lomborg!"
"He's a mirror of WHO?"
"A mirror of Gore!"
"By George, he's got it!"
"Gore is a bore, and as a loser he's sore!"
"Uhhh...what the hell? That's not right! Damn it all, you're completely off script!!"
"It had to be done."

it is also awarded to people who make discoveries that have benefits for the future

Yeah, tell me about it!

I think it was right around this time three years ago when I first advanced the theory that it was technically feasible for someone to make an absolute killing by concocting a scheme to successfully motivate millions of movie-goers to head out to the local cinema with dispatch pay $7 to watch a PowerPoint presentation.

They all laughed...yes...oh, how those pompous, self-important sheep on the university Board of Regents *LAUGHED!!*, and mocked me, and gave me wedgies and shoved me into the girls' bathroom when I went to them asking for funds to explore my forward-looking idea.

Now it seems that this Al Gore flick has validated my theories; *THIS* make make them stand up and take notice!! I'll bet those bastards aren't laughing *ANYMORE*!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!

I've noticed, from this board, from chatting with my father and his friends, and from the Indianapolis Star - nothing gets a neo-cons panties in a bind faster than a liberal - especially a liberal leader - being given any positive recognition.

I'm sure if Dan Quayle was given the Nobel Prize in Physiology, liberals would be taking him downtown at this very moment and buying him Jello shots and lapdances.

i don't think it has anything to do with the presidency - more of a statement of "here is an American that we don't hate" or "we hate Bush so well put Gore in the spot light."

...and could there ever be better reason to deliberately withold honors and recognition from someone who has devoted himself fully to actually accomplishing something that's actually worth a fuck and has or will have tangible benefits for humanity than pointlessly snubbing a country's wildly unpopular head of state by feting a political has-been who has been busying himself by sharing a compendium of research he's compiled which contains revelations that couldn't be more mind-blowing and astounding if Gore had started out presenting his case for why he thinks the Earth orbits the Sun and not the other way around.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/My_Fair_Lady_64.jpg

"...he's a special-interest whore, said the opponents of Gore!"
["LOOK, YOU!! STUFF A FRIGGIN' SOCK IN IT ALREADY!!

[dry-gulcher]

I think I should win the Nobel for being here for 8 years.

or maybe the board should win?

:confused:
You deserve it more than he [Gore] does.

[dry-gulcher]

maybe i'm a little slow, but what does talking about Global Warming even have to with "peace"?
Supposedly the earth will warm up cuz of all our human activity and change weather patterns causing global upheavals and we soon will all be at each other's throats.
Santzu is right Gore hit the exacta.
Luck must have alot to do with it cuz Al understands zero about science as many of the boardsters must know ,based on the cynical responses posted.

Remember it would only take one Pinatubo-sized eruption to make it snow in July.

[tobedawg]

You know, it may just me, but reading this makes me believe your expectations of someone who is running for office are so far beyond what a reasonable person would have that is is virtually impossible for me to address this particular point. After going back and perusing a great deal of the analysis that has been written, the consensus seems to be that depending on the recount strategy, it was still going to be a tossup. And that the flawed nature of the ballots overall would have made it impossible to salvage things completely, in any case. As to your issues with the black vote, and Gore's role, the only real avenue for contesting this was done, in fact, by members of the Congressional Black Caucus in the House. The problem is, an objection of this sort needs to be co-sponsored by a senator, and not one would do so (plenty of Democrats there, however, who you obviously give a pass too). Doing so would have brought objection to the Florida vote and forced Congressional action. Al Gore, in his capacity as President of the Senate, was forced to stand on the sidelines and rule the objections out of order - barred from direct participation in anything other than a tie vote.

But what about AFTER the decision had been made to give the Election to George W Bush? Where was Al Gore in defending those folks who were disenfranchised voters?

You say I expect too much from people running for office, but why should I not? IF someone is going to win the Presidency or any elected office, they are working for me and the millions of people that voted for them! Our tax dollars are paying their overblown salaries, retirement funds, limo rides, hookers on the weekend, etc. They are EMPLOYEES of the people.. If I failed to do my job correctly, I would be fired, the same should happen with elected officials and those in Congress or the Senate.

Again, this is not actually supported by anything that even smacks of careful research. In this speech given by Gore:

The question though is Where was he when the lead up to the Iraq War was beginning? Was he out in the streets protesting with the millions of other Americans? Was he in Iraq helping children or feeding the troops? Nope.. Instead he was making money off of the speech circuit and being the attention loving opportunist that he is.


But I have this thing about people who are fundamentally good, conscientious, and competent being picked on by individuals such as yourself. This guy has been the butt of what I consider an undeserved hack job by both the far right and the far left for years. He was not a dynamic campaigner, although he has made great strides on his public persona in recent years. He himself admits that, and it's one of the reasons he has refused to get into this years race even though a large portion of the Democratic strategists would have loved to have seen him run.

Now this is funny.. "Poor little Al Gore such a victim".. Please! T

I am defending Al Gore, but not only because when you view him against the standard - his peers, he has done much more good than most over the course of his life. Or because it's the Nobel Committee's call, and a lot of them obviously liked the idea. It is to a large degree because I see this as a shabby ad hominem attack, especially when delivered under a cloud of innuendo, misstatement, and in some cases complete untruth. I feel compelled to defend any individual in those circumstances when, as Al Gore often does, he cannot or will not strike back at those who do so.

The man is no Nelson Mandela. I didn't see him giving the proceeds from his film to starving children in Africa or flying out the Bangledesh to help liberate the kids working in sweat shops. Instead he flew around the country in his expensive private jet and did photo op's and shilled his film.

[Shlep]

The abundence of manufacturing and little oversight in China is obvious, but the real issue at hand is Gore's "Enviornmental" Record. I find something wrong with a man who is touted as a "Nobel Prize Winning enviornmentalist" and having a Free trade deal that allows Mexicans trucks into the U.S. releasing a great deal of air pollution happen on your watch a bit inconsistent.

Now see here: the Mexican truckers wouldn't be doing anything more than polluting air that Americans can't bothered to ruin. It's simple economics, and one would be a fool to ignore or discount this simple, central fact. :D

Now, if you *REALLY* want to take Al to task for being the kind of brazen hypocrite who loudly and sanctimoniously scolds others for exacerbating what he clearly feels is the already piss-poor stewardship Mother Earth while not walking the walk himself, there's THIS (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888) bit of info I stumbled over earlier:

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson.

I'm willing to bet that "if this were any other person," various Tennessee law enforcement agencies might look at Gores' meter readings, utility bills, and maybe the thermal signature of his house and seriously wonder if the occupants were running an indoor pot farm.

[Hogarth]

by Sharon Melnick
Thu Oct 18, 11:10 AM ET



Pundits have commended Gore's moral vision and effective dissemination of his environmental message. I do too, but I would argue an equally important lesson is the process by which he went from 'loser to laureate' (NY Times, October 12). He moved beyond being a 'people pleasing politician' to 'in a power position', and that is a lesson many of us stand to learn.

ADVERTISEMENT

Gore could have played the 'victim' or attempted a comeback, to prove he 'should have won'. With these approaches he would have been looking to the American public to reassure him of his capacity and worthiness to serve. Instead, he looked within: He returned to his original core competency. He learned to meditate. He pinpointed the issue that most engaged him, consolidated his expertise so he could trust himself, and started speaking about it (anywhere and everywhere.) At the beginning there weren't that many people in the room, and some called him strident.

Now he fills stadiums and we plead with him to run for the position he was pleading for 8 years ago. He is no longer beholden to others' comments because he has an authentic sense of purpose, and lives from an internal compass. He stopped the approaches people commonly do, which I call "looking and waiting and hoping and trying". These are the ways we divert our attention towards other people to get them to validate us. Success comes from putting efforts directly into achieving our aims and making ourselves feel secure.

Politicians and business leaders take note: His leadership comes from being out in front, knowing who he is and what his vision is, not following polls. Gore doesn't have to deceive, squelch others' perspectives, make promises, or sell himself -- he speaks his truth and people respond. It's not a power grab that compensates for his insecurities, it's a mission for a greater good beyond himself. Of course he enjoys the accolades, but they are the cherry on top not the sundae. This is why he's 'lost his taste' for politics. Few who taste the freedom and effectiveness that come from 'being in one's own power' would revert to prior approaches.

To state the obvious, politicians could learn from his playbook. Being beholden to others' approval and pleasing others, however, is also rampant in the workplace (and in families). There is vast opportunity for people to learn from his example.

Many people in the workplace are seeking approval on a daily basis, though they may not be consciously aware of it. From in-depth conversations with hundreds of businesspeople as a business coach and trainer, many report typically engaging in the following behaviors to seek validation, reassurance, or recognition:

• working obsessively in order to get a "pat on the back" from a boss or client
• saying 'yes' to everyones' requests but not finishing what you need to do
• exhausting yourself being perfect to make sure others think well of you
• asking others' opinions even though you know in your gut what to do
• worrying about 'politics' and what others think about you
• stealing credit from others

Equally frequent are behaviors in which people avoid or procrastinate in order to prevent other people from being able to criticize or reject them:

• have good ideas but don't assert them in meetings
• procrastinate so your work can't be commented on
• stay mired in comfort zone of details instead of thinking strategically
• avoid direct feedback

All of these behaviors put energy and attention into managing other people's perceptions of oneself. This is how people act when they have doubts about their value -- they get other people to think well of them so they can then 'borrow' that perception to boost their own confidence, or they prevent other people from shaking their already shaky confidence by avoiding "putting themselves out there". Emerging leaders who engage in these behaviors won't rise to seniority -- their attention is siphoned into personalized concerns of how they are doing, rather than on bottom line results.

Using strategies that in earlier times may have gotten them ahead, the "people pleasers" are now losing ground. Increasingly, organizations promote people who implement innovations, rather than reward those who play it safe and drain their attention worrying about what other people think. Entrepreneurial home runs go to those who have a highly developed core competency and stay true to their mission. Success in these times is about personal responsibility for developing one's own self -- taking input from, but not relying on outside sources whether bosses, opinion polls, family members, therapists, gurus, or anyone else.


As a psychologist, I believe that human beings are biologically and psychologically set up to seek approval. Cognitively, we come to know ourselves in large measure as we are reflected in the eyes of important other people. We learn at an early age to get our family members and teachers to think well of us, so that we can think well of ourselves. We are biologically programmed to seek from others a feeling of love and safety -- it's our "emotional oxygen". These approaches are normal and adaptive early in life. Yet as we mature, it is up to us as adults to give this validation to ourselves (so that we can focus on being productive and have something to give to our children). The most successful people develop this capacity to be their own person, to be their own compass, and to recharge their own batteries (and those who don't pursue futility as they try to get these inputs from others!) Ironically, Gore is in an unprecedented position of power that didn't come from him 'seeking it'. Take a lesson from his playbook, and maybe a one-year sweep of an Oscar, Emmy, and Nobel will be in your future, too.

What the author seems to say is that Gore has indie cred, and is the playbook for how to get it.

[tobedawg]

What the author seems to say is that Gore has indie cred, and is the playbook for how to get it.

Oh Dear Gawd! I guess Al Gore circa 2007 has Indie Cred in the same way that Madonna circa 2007 does.. ;)

[silentpaul]

Oh Dear Gawd! I guess Al Gore circa 2007 has Indie Cred in the same way that Madonna circa 2007 does.. ;)
Didn't Al invent indie cred?
;)

[classicgrrl]

I can't believe this thread is still active.

when people get their panties bunched over Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize and a rapper naming his record something stupid to move product you know it is a slow day in the world.

:rolleyes: