View Full Version : GOre and friend top candidates for peace price
discovery1
10-12-2007, 07:44
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1118887020071012
Wha? This makes little sense, even factoring in my drunkeness. Peace prize for climate change?
CountArach
10-12-2007, 07:46
It doesn't seem right to me. While I admire his work, he doesn't exactly fit into the category.
Giving him the Peace Prize would imply that we have a "War on Nature", and I know we have the "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs", but that's just ridiculous.
Surely, a Peace Prize is for work on/in Peace
Pannonian
10-12-2007, 08:10
Given the thread title, does this mean the Iraqis will stop fighting if the Americans turn them over?
Maybe global warming is responsible for crop growth and increased extremism in the middle east. ~D
cegorach
10-12-2007, 10:24
Don't worry he just got the prize. :wall: :wall:
My God how ridiculous it is...:inquisitive:
Tribesman
10-12-2007, 11:06
For highlighting an issue that may lead to mass migrations and competition for resources that may lead to future conflicts over territory ...OK some merit in that , but winning a nobel prize for it....bollox
What a load of pure-unadulterated crap. The other options were/are so much more noble.
Has to be said, not being Bush does comes him kinda naturally. But of course it isn't about all that, the nobel price is an independent institution that isn't hijacked by politico's at all, much like Cannes.
Has to be said, not being Bush does comes him kinda naturally. But of course it isn't about all that, the nobel price is an independent institution that isn't hijacked by politico's at all, much like Cannes.
So true.
Sides this is not for Peace, in the Peace Vs War sense of the word.
Look at last years winners, or Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King.
This is about doing something for the world.
Even tho I don't agree with Gore's views (imo there's no such thing as rapid climate change, sure we might influence it a bit, but nature is still on it's own. Next to that I know of enough climate changes in the past. The Younger Dryas to start with) I see where the Nobel Committee is, Gore raised Global awareness of this issue, and we're seeing change already.
You've got a point there Stig, but the other options/nominees (to me anyway) are a lot better.
KukriKhan
10-12-2007, 12:15
Poor Al. I guess now he'll hafta take time off his busy schedule to fly with his film crew to receive the prize, document it, and put the film up on that internetz thingee he invented.
I was being sarcastic Stig, this is a childish stab at the Bush administration, in the same way that every movie Moore makes get the prices in Cannes no matter how much they suck, same with an inconvenient truth which is at best a controversial movie. Pssst propaganda.
I was being sarcastic Stig, this is a childish stab at the Bush administration, in the same way that every movie Moore makes get the prices in Cannes no matter how much they suck, same with an inconvenient truth which is at best a controversial movie. Pssst propaganda.
Everything is propaganda mate
Or do you think Submission is the best movie ever made?
Sides the Nobel Prize Committee is one of the last independent things, why do you think they still award them in Norwegian and Swedish and not in English?
Seamus Fermanagh
10-12-2007, 13:01
Can't the Bush detractors simply get to the heart of the issue, pass a UN general assembly resolution stating that:
Most of the world thinks you're a flaming rectal sphincter, Mr. Bush, please resign and go back to Texas.
And then give the prizes etc. to more worthy nominees.
I'm not that much against Bush, but if it would help the rest let off a bit of steam and get back to reality......:devilish:
Can't the Bush detractors simply get to the heart of the issue, pass a UN general assembly resolution stating that:
Most of the world thinks you're a flaming rectal sphincter, Mr. Bush, please resign and go back to Texas.
And then give the prizes etc. to more worthy nominees.
I'm not that much against Bush, but if it would help the rest let off a bit of steam and get back to reality......:devilish:
well...they don´t do that because the countries are represented in the UN by their governments politicians....and politicians wouldn´t do something as straight up as that.
Do the Nobel and Cannes people have a political stance?...sure....but since they are independent organizations and not politicians they voice their opinions...nothing wrong with that.
Louis VI the Fat
10-12-2007, 13:26
I for one applaud the Nobel committee for recognising the grave threat that climate change caused by human activity presents to the environment itself and to the stability and sustainabilty of the world's societies.
Congrats to Gore, for raising awarness, and to the IPCC for its reports and solutions. :2thumbsup:
Oh, and since when has global climate chance been reduced to an aspect of very temporary party politics in a single nation representing 4% of the world's population?
I am not so sure that anti-Bushism was foremost in the mind of the Nobel committee. I think it is funny how both a large amount of Americans and the vast amount of America's fiercest critics share the opinion that the world revolves around America.
I am not so sure that anti-Bushism was foremost in the mind of the Nobel committee. I think it is funny how both a large amount of Americans and the vast amount of America's fiercest critics share the opinion that the world revolves around America.
QFT. :quickly glances back at posts to prevent embarrassing irony:
Seamus Fermanagh
10-12-2007, 20:11
I am not so sure that anti-Bushism was foremost in the mind of the Nobel committee. I think it is funny how both a large amount of Americans and the vast amount of America's fiercest critics share the opinion that the world revolves around America.
A fair point that.
USA politics does matter to a lot of other countries, however, as a result of all of the "leader of the fre world" crap etc. It is not entirely without merit to assume active participation by those impacted.
HoreTore
10-12-2007, 20:17
I vote to swap out the nobel committee.
And I'm the only one here who can vote on that too :laugh4:
HoreTore
10-12-2007, 20:21
Do the Nobel and Cannes people have a political stance?...sure....but since they are independent organizations and not politicians they voice their opinions...nothing wrong with that.
Quite the opposite, in fact ~;) The nobel committee is selected by our government, and a lot of them are ex-politicos...
Devastatin Dave
10-12-2007, 21:10
I wonder if he's flying in his "eco friendly" private jet to get there? Hope his bought a LOT of carbon credits for the trip and the hot air we'll hear from his speech.
On a side not, too bad old Nobel Peace prize winner Arafat isn't around. He and Al could fly around training suicide bombers to blow up anyone that disagreed with them.
English assassin
10-12-2007, 21:36
Still, it was nice they gave literature to Doris Lessing, wasn't it? She lives just round the corner from me, a very nice old lady.
Proletariat
10-12-2007, 21:49
USA politics does matter to a lot of other countries, however, as a result of all of the "leader of the fre world" crap etc. It is not entirely without merit to assume active participation by those impacted.
Also it's an ex-US Vice President who won it, and he won it for a controversial topic in which the US takes (for right or for wrong), almost all the blame. Good point Louis, but I do think in this case it's a very American issue, for both it's detractors and supporters.
HoreTore
10-12-2007, 21:55
Statement of the Nobel institute:
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lau_announce2007.html
THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR 2007
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
Indications of changes in the earth’s future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.
Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.
Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world’s leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.
By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.
Oslo, 12 October 2007
Gore is definately someone suited for the price, yep. :beam:
Kralizec
10-12-2007, 22:55
On a side not, too bad old Nobel Peace prize winner Arafat isn't around. He and Al could fly around training suicide bombers to blow up anyone that disagreed with them.
I didn't know Arafat had one, so I looked it up. He got it along with Yitzak Rabin for the Oslo accords (those Norwegians again, hmmm). I actually think that one had a lot more merit then Gore's award, even if the Oslo accords didn't deliver what was hoped for. It's supposed to be the Nobel prize for peace afterall- the reasoning in the statement that HoreTore cited is utter fabrication.
I wonder if he's flying in his "eco friendly" private jet to get there? Hope his bought a LOT of carbon credits for the trip and the hot air we'll hear from his speech.
On a side not, too bad old Nobel Peace prize winner Arafat isn't around. He and Al could fly around training suicide bombers to blow up anyone that disagreed with them.
So, Bush should have got one after destroying everything Clinton made?
Or for the War in Iraq maybe, afterall, he did improve the situation there, without Hussein, it's a real peace there now.
@Kraz, nowadays it's only named Nobel Prize for Peace, so many have gotten it for something that had little to do with peace. It's about doing something for the world ... and most of the time that somehow involves peace.
HoreTore
10-12-2007, 23:38
@Kraz, nowadays it's only named Nobel Prize for Peace, so many have gotten it for something that had little to do with peace. It's about doing something for the world ... and most of the time that somehow involves peace.
No, it's named Nobel's Peace Prize, not for peace...
It's role has been debated a lot here in norway over the last years, as it has shifted it's position quite dramatically to also include things that indirectly affects war and peace, like working against poverty(grameen bank) and enviromentalism(like al and the chick 3-4 years ago).
I for one is not very happy about this.
Devastatin Dave
10-13-2007, 00:39
[QUOTE=Stig]So, Bush should have got one after destroying everything Clinton made?
The only thing Clinton make was a spunk spot on a fat chicks blue dress.
@Kral... You don't give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone that was an active terrorist. And remember, it was the Clinton (the Gore was VP in)administration that authorised the bombing of Serbian residential area and rejected the Kyoted treaty the first time. Gore and most of his supporteres are more full of #### than a Thanksgiving turkey.
This just further denigrates the Nobel prize. Apparently the message is that it's ok to be a fear monger who distorts the facts, just so long as you're "raising awareness" about an already popular cause...
Crazed Rabbit
10-13-2007, 01:18
Why the hatin' on Gore, guys? He's just trying to save us from 110% guaranteed doom, and he's super serial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxqhwZGefc4&mode=related&search=).
:2thumbsup:
CR
Louis VI the Fat
10-13-2007, 01:39
If, like the Nobel committe, one accepts that there is a grave climatic danger and that climatic upheaval will cause increased instability and poverty in especially the more vulnarable states of the world, then the Peace prize is very logical. I can see why maybe the Algoracle should not have won it, but I do see why it should've been the Peace Prize. Plus, let's face it, there's no way you could grant 'An Inconvenient Truth' a scientific Nobel prize.
Like with wars, one can argue that peace must sometimes be made pre-emptively. Which brings us nicely to the second part of this post, contemporary American politics:
'I do think in this case it's a very American issue, for both it's detractors and supporters'.
Oi, you're right. I shamefully overlooked that. From an American perspective, this all does have an acute relevance to domestic politics indeed.
'USA politics does matter to a lot of other countries, however, as a result of all of the "leader of the free world" crap etc. It is not entirely without merit to assume active participation by those impacted.'
Quite right. I, too, know the programs of half of the American presidential hopefuls more than a year before the election, but I can't name the current presidents of Bangladesh or Nigeria. (These two nations together also represent 4% of the world's population)
And it is true that it's the very status of former VP of the USA that won Al Gore a Nobel price. It is not his message itself - millions have said the same thing better before him - it is the global impact Gore's words have.
(When, say, the vice president of South Africa makes a hugely important scientific breakthrough nobody listens: where's that Nobel price for Thabo Mbeki, who discovered that aids is caused by poverty, not by a virus? And why was no Nobel chemistry price ever granted to the Great Chemistry Leader Elena Ceausescu?)
But I had two somewhat different points in mind, firstly the irony that both the most self-absorbed Americans and America's fiercest critics share the thought that America is the root and cause of everything in this world. Which had no direct bearing on anything said in this thread.
And secondly, related to the point above but more directly related to this thread, that this thought is a mistake. Not everything in this world can be traced to America. Neither all good nor all ills in this world. Poverty in Africa can't, corrupt politicians in the Arab states can't, the troubles of the welfare state in Europe can't. And the Nobel Peace prize can't. Which, as Prole was so kind to point out, is all nice and dandy but utter rubbish since the Gore Peace prize is a very direct American issue with a very direct connection to contemporary American politics.
it was nice they gave literature to Doris LessingShe's not American, hence nobody is paying attention. ~;)
Seamus Fermanagh
10-13-2007, 05:06
Excellent statement Louis. Merci mille fois.
She's not American, hence nobody is paying attention. ~;)
I noticed the name and wanted to ask whether she has any connection to Gotthold Ephraim Lessing?
I know he's a bit older but they could still be related.
After looking it up myself, apparently not, except if her second husband Gottfried Lessing has a connection to...well, not that important.
Louis, very eloquently put.
Ironside
10-13-2007, 10:37
Still, it was nice they gave literature to Doris Lessing, wasn't it? She lives just round the corner from me, a very nice old lady.
You're aware that the Peace price is the only Nobel price given in Norway? The rest are given in Sweden (=different committees).
Tribesman
10-13-2007, 11:59
@Kral... You don't give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone that was an active terrorist.
Thats funny , it has being given to lots of people who were active terrorists . Just like its been given to people who were called traitors .
Kralizec
10-13-2007, 12:19
So, Bush should have got one after destroying everything Clinton made?
Or for the War in Iraq maybe, afterall, he did improve the situation there, without Hussein, it's a real peace there now.
@Kraz, nowadays it's only named Nobel Prize for Peace, so many have gotten it for something that had little to do with peace. It's about doing something for the world ... and most of the time that somehow involves peace.
Al Gore is getting the prize because his work is a "solution" to a purely hypothetical cause for war. When something's explicitly called a prize for Peace, you'd expect that the achievement has made some tangible contribution to resolving a conflict, or preventing the outbreak of one.
Maybe there should be an extra catagory for people who have made some lasting contribution to the world in a way that's not easily placed under the existing headers (physics, peace, chemistry, physiology, medicine, literature)
But then again, I frankly don't think Gore would deserve that one either.
@Kral... You don't give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone that was an active terrorist.
I don't see why not, actually. The Oslo accords were a major breakthrough and the prize was a recognition of that, plus he had to share it with the other party. But given the rather political track record of the Nobel committees it is a bit awkward that Arafat got one.
@Kral... You don't give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone that was an active terrorist.
Time Magazine wanted to make Osama Bin Laden Person of the Year 2001, but wasn't "allowed". Guess who spoke up.
Byzantine Mercenary
10-13-2007, 13:03
Firstly was the prize not given just to gore, it was gore and...
''The U.N. climate panel, officially called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), groups 2,500 scientists and issued a series of reports this year blaming mankind for global warming and outlining solutions.''
What we have is what is potentially the biggest threat to mankind, these scientists are attempting to find solutions...
It would seem that some of you think global warming a scare tactic, well i agree that some proponants of man attributed climate change have exagerated effects (often due to it being difficult to work out the severity) however there is little doubt amoung the experts that we are the cause and that there will be consequences.
Now we have a choice, do nothing in the hope that we are wrong, or take action to prevent this threat (such action need not be too destructive).
Consider whether the desision not to improve the new orleans levys was cost effective? but on a global scale...
Tribesman
10-13-2007, 13:08
What we have is what is potentially the biggest threat to mankind, these scientists are attempting to find solutions...
Oh come on whens it gonna stop , next thing they will be giving people the award for research on improving food production .
Byzantine Mercenary
10-13-2007, 13:35
Oh come on whens it gonna stop , next thing they will be giving people the award for research on improving food production .
these things may not be as fancy as killing people, but they are still important...
HoreTore
10-14-2007, 07:39
I still believe Mordechai Vanunu should've gotten the prize.
Like I've said the last 3-4 years...
Tribesman
10-14-2007, 10:02
these things may not be as fancy as killing people, but they are still important...
Ah so that would be why they have given the peace prize for it previously .
Byzantine Mercenary
10-14-2007, 12:34
Ah so that would be why they have given the peace prize for it previously .
hmm well i do see what you mean but there isnt a, actions that will potentially save lives prize, and i guess the peace prize is as near as you will get.
Also i didn't mean so much to imply that this particular prize had been rewarded for taking lives in the past just that we should treat those who try to make important developments that could save lives and insure security in our future with more respect (then perhaps those who merely start unnessisary wars...).
Giving a so-called "peace prize" to a man who supports and advocates for genocide via 'abortion' - as Gore does - is insanity.
I don't see why Gore's Nobel is any more ridiculous than Yassir Arafat's or Henry Kissinger's. At least they chose to give it to a guy who isn't actively getting people killed this time.
Admittedly a bad call by the Nobel committee, but the reactions in this thread are completely out of proportion. Is anyone suffering from Gore Derangement Syndrome?
HoreTore
10-15-2007, 06:37
Giving a so-called "peace prize" to a man who supports and advocates for genocide via 'abortion' - as Gore does - is insanity.
Actually, all of the Nobel committee members actively support abortion... So I doubt that will ever cross their minds.
@Lemur: I get upset whenever they don't give it to Vanunu...
Actually, all of the Nobel committee members actively support abortion... So I doubt that will ever cross their minds.
Hurrah! for the majority of Europe.
I don't see why Gore's Nobel is any more ridiculous than Yassir Arafat's or Henry Kissinger's. At least they chose to give it to a guy who isn't actively getting people killed this time.
Admittedly a bad call by the Nobel committee, but the reactions in this thread are completely out of proportion. Is anyone suffering from Gore Derangement Syndrome?
So you're wondering why people are complaining about Gore winning the Nobel prize while not complaining about Arafat or Kissinger winning? Do you think maybe it could have something to do with the fact that Gore won just now, whereas the other 2 are in the past? If anyone ever wants to complain about a winner, must they cite every other winner they don't think deserved it as well to keep you from calling them deranged? :dizzy2:
If anyone ever wants to complain about a winner, must they cite every other winner they don't think deserved it as well to keep you from calling them deranged?
Wow, that's going the long way around the barn. Your chain of assertions is amusing, and bears only a fleeting relationship with what I wrote. As I said, the reactions to Gore's win are, in my opinion, way out of proportion. I was commenting on the heat and venom being directed at a fat boy who won a prize for his documentary. He's not even an elected official any more. I'm not entirely clear on why Gore matters.
Wow, that's going the long way around the barn. Your chain of assertions is amusing, and bears only a fleeting relationship with what I wrote. As I said, the reactions to Gore's win are, in my opinion, way out of proportion. I was commenting on the heat and venom being directed at a fat boy who won a prize for his documentary. He's not even an elected official any more. I'm not entirely clear on why Gore matters.
Someone thinks he matters- they gave him a Nobel prize. Thus this thread.
I'd also point out that much of griping has been about the prize committee more than the large one himself....his hypocrisy has already been well-documented. :wink:
Seamus Fermanagh
10-15-2007, 20:18
....I'm not entirely clear on why Gore matters.
THAT's an inconvenient truth!
:devilish:
Crazed Rabbit
10-15-2007, 20:41
Wow, that's going the long way around the barn. Your chain of assertions is amusing, and bears only a fleeting relationship with what I wrote. As I said, the reactions to Gore's win are, in my opinion, way out of proportion. I was commenting on the heat and venom being directed at a fat boy who won a prize for his documentary. He's not even an elected official any more. I'm not entirely clear on why Gore matters.
We bemoan, fair Lemur, not this self proclaimed 'Goracle' nor his actions. He has set about a course of action many fault him for, but many still praise him for. Yet in the previous statements we see a great clamor from the masses denouncing his action. If then the denouncers include those who would follow his advice, sagely or no, can not the outcry be disjointed from one's attitude towards the man?
Is not the hue and cry raised, then, by the populace, directed against the action of awarding and not the recipient? For is not this esteemed group descended from the first Nobel prize committee? And was the Nobel prize not started to glorify those who did there utmost to raise humanity up through knowledge and peace?
And yet from those glorious foundations, great bedrock principles of enlightenment, we see awards for peace given to those who have done nothing for peace? What claim has this Goracle have, or even made, on helping to spread peace? Nay, it is his worldly renown for speaking on a scientific issue that is his only claim on notoriety. But if he adamantly insists he speaks on science, then why was he not given an award for scientific achievements?
And thus we come to the point - the sharp tip of discontent - that the Nobel Committee hath forsaken their beginnings to award a man for political views. His science holds no great truths, and he hath made no strides towards worldly peace. And so we see the mighty record of human achievement reduced to a partisan rubble. This Goracle must surely know that, yet still he accepts this award, as everywhere friends of reason and science gnash their teeth and tear at their hair, bemoaning what has become.
Crazed Rabbit
Seamus Fermanagh
10-15-2007, 20:57
Heavens above! Our dear Rabbit is moved almost to poesy! Ne'er have I seen ye so airy with thy parsiflage my dear sir. There does seem
a whiff of the political about this annual's award -- more objective than honorific mayhap?
I tip my hat to you, fair Crazed Rabbit, and cede the field. Your rant is just and worthy!
Byzantine Mercenary
10-17-2007, 22:56
Al Gore and the IPCC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC...
So im going to issue a challenge, i challenge everyone in this thread to read their report, in full and see what you think of it. Please try and aproach this without bias forget what you currently believe and see what you think.
Thanks.
The summary comes in three parts:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf
http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/FAR4docs/final%20pdfs%20of%20chapters%20WGIII/IPCC%20WGIII_SPM_final.pdf
AntiochusIII
10-18-2007, 07:03
Okay, I've got confession to make here: I like Al Gore. He's a real American success story. Became Vice President, took on the Presidential Race, won the popular vote even when he lost the election, and even then still obstinately refused to fade into obscurity. Quite the opposite. While his victorious opponent George W. Bush sits in the imperial White House quietly watching his achievements, his reputation, and even his relevance falling apart, the man who lost the election gets rich, gets the Nobel Prize, gets to raise issues, gets to be controversial, and gets talked about on a regular basis. :2thumbsup:
Who cares if he's right or wrong, or whether he deserved the Nobel Prize or not? He made his place in history like a real American Dream hero (snobby East Coast Ivy League version, though); a Gatsby, one could say. And to hell with the trivialities like "hypocrisy" and "accuracy." People only raise those kinds of issues when they know they've lost the Rat Race.
:smug:
Gore has done a great job with creating awareness about the global warming issue. In the future the climate changes might very well lead to armed conflicts, thus his work does really got something to do with the Peace Prize.
His video contained scientifically mistakes yes...but the human-caused global warming is still true, which is the whole point of the video anyway LOL.
John Stossel's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o) take on Gore and his film.
Louis VI the Fat
10-22-2007, 23:24
John Stossel's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o) take on Gore and his film.What crock, that. Stossel adds nothing to any debate in this video. All he does is pit himself against schoolchildren, deranged activists, and against an alleged violent conspiracy against scientists.
If he wants to prove his point, he should pit himself against the best of his opponents, not the worst.
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAggxIECe5M&mode=related&search=) is a more intelligent debunking of Gorebal warming.
I agree with Lousi, this Stossel guy is pretty cheesy, he tries too hard to be sensationalist himself and he kinda shows he has an agenda. :sweatdrop:
John Stossel's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o) take on Gore and his film.
Either you falsify a theory, or come up with a realistic alternative. You don't sit in a group and talk nonsense. :clown:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.