AL GORE WINS NOBEL PEACE PRIZE !

Everyone who criticizes Gore for winning this and promoting global warming has no clue. Sure, he may have a 15,000 square foot house, 72 different cars, and a private jet. But you forget one thing. He is a better person than us! He is allowed to do these things! Don't be jealous because you are still living in your mother's basement, drooling on yourself and you play on letsrun. Gore deserves every bit of praise he gets, and he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Think of the kiddies! And the dogs! And the little dolphins that play in the sea!

Gambatte! wrote:

oftenrunning52 wrote:

What "peace" has Gore championed? Global warming is not a peace issue.

I haven't read what the Nobel committee has said about Gore's work. Without that info, it may not be obvious but if you put a little thought into it, you should be able to figure out that global warming is a serious peace issue.

There was a good piece in the Washington Post last Sunday by a Danish (I think) scientist that I thought was fairly balanced on the issue of Global Warming. He said that is is real and is, in part, caused by man. But, the consequences will likely not be nearly as severe as commonly thought.

Most interestingly, he claims spending billions trying to cap carbon emissions is waste of money, because even if the Kyoto targets could be met, the impact of achieving that goal would be negligible over 100 years. It would make more sense to spend that money trying to mitigate the effects of warming, like reinforcing infrastructure near coastlines, etc... Man has forever adapted to a changing environment. Also, he said that global warming should have a net effect of saving lives, because more people die each year due to extreme cold than heat. Interesting.

On the issue of climate change becoming a security issue, that is a highly debatable proposition. In fact, I believe the University of Maryland has one of the world's leading experts (can't think of his name) on this issue. He and another colleague have spent years researching limited resources and their effect on security and, contrary to a commonly held view, the data simply doesn't support the proposition that many major wars are fought over resources. Human poitical entities are much more inclined to cooperate over limited resources than fight over it. People often point, for example, to the Nazi push into the Caucasus in 1943 as an example of resources (oil, etc) causing conflict. But actually, Nazi Germany was a war machine that needed to keep feeding intself, it did not become a war machine because it lacked resources. War and conflict is a very complicated human phenomenon that simply cannot be reduced to economics.

Just some food for thought.

Other liberal non-producers of society:

Nelson Mandela

Elie Wiesel

Desmond Tutu

Lech Walesa

Mother Teresa

Martin Luther King

Linus Pauling

and would have been given to Gandhi

Reason of Gore and UN Panel's award:

"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"

the Nobel people must have found reason, for many years the didn't even award a peace prize

Go read what the committee says about the award. There are a lot of "may"s and "might"s in their lame explanation. This award has become an issue award not a person award.

Technically the award was given to Al Gore AND the UN Climate Council. I really wish the award were less political, but of course the committee are all (former)politicians.

Le Duc Tho

Gorbachev

Arafat

Coffee Annan + Useless Nations

Dhimmi Carter

Mohamed El Baradei

now Al Gore

I am turning in my grave. Who's next, Ahmadinejad?

Ft. Worth wrote:

Great...al gore...maybe him and john kerry should do a speach on conserving gasoline and saving the environment, and then hop into their jets and burn millions of gallons of that precious gasoline. Thats why i didn't vote for the hypocrites.

And you are an example of why I disregard illiterate idiots.

9000000000000000000000000 wrote:

Haha, Gore couldn't even win his "home state" in the election. Do we really want someone like that?

Well, in his defense, that state WAS Tennessee.

It looks like you should pay no attention to yourself, since you started a sentence with a conjunction.

It's an allowable construct.

"And"?! wrote:

It looks like you should pay no attention to yourself, since you started a sentence with a conjunction.

I have a question for you, though. In your sentence above, to what does the word 'it' refer?

There are better, and more creative, ways to contruct the sentence in question. As is, it's indicative of lazy writing. Traditionalists would still circle the construct.

Israel will still be nuked into international compliance. The resistance to occupation continues until freedom and peace is achieved for all of Palestine.

Oh so now this is the board of quality and creativity? Please.

wha? the first 5 medals were given in 1901; the first peace prize in 1905. i wouldn't call that "many years".

the peace prize has often caused controversy. i thank the german women who is credited for urging Nobel, an amaments maker, to leave a postive legacy.

"And"?! wrote:

There are better, and more creative, ways to contruct the sentence in question. As is, it's indicative of lazy writing. Traditionalists would still circle the construct.

Here's a sentence construct: shut up.

You're right, the earth has undergone huge climatic fluctuations in the past, however, these have generally followed a cyclical pattern which suggests that we should've begun to enter a cool period. The magnitude and rate of our divergence from this expected pattern is what's really striking, in addition to how well it correlates with human activity. You're right, there is certainly not "unanimous" consent about every research topic related to global warming, but please read the IPCC report, which was produced by some very good scientists. Global warming is caused by humans. Of course there can't be unanimous consent that this will cause out of control disastrous warming, there are just too many natural feedbacks that aren't completely understood.

We know the oceans and forests will absorb a lot of CO2, but eventually that will slow down and stop. There are minor effects that have already been observed and others that are certain to occur, and there are catastrophic risks that have a lower percentage of occuring. However, when making economic predictions about the costs of warming, you have to factors in the risk that these catastrophic events will occur. I like this way of thinking about it, taking action on global warming now is like buying insurance for the future (whether you believe it's man made or not, although if you don't now you probably never will). The cost of current action is almost certainly less than the expected future costs if we don't do anything, look at the Stern Review on Econ. of Climate Change. Sure we could get "lucky", and nothing happens, but it just does not make economic sense to take that chance.

pitkamaki wrote:

wha? the first 5 medals were given in 1901; the first peace prize in 1905. i wouldn't call that "many years".

the peace prize has often caused controversy. i thank the german women who is credited for urging Nobel, an amaments maker, to leave a postive legacy.

'the Nobel people must have found reason, for many years the didn't even award a peace prize'

the Nobel people must have found good reason, there have been many years where they didn't even award a peace prize

Your mommy just called for you, lunch is ready.

Stop playing Halo and go eat.