Thread: Nobel peace prize

Actually, Gore only got half the prize... the other half went to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Nobel Prizes are awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace. It's hard for me to see the connection with "peace" in Gore's endeavor.

The prize was "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" (quoted from the Nobleprize.org website)

I watched Gore's film and it did not produce a convincing argument in my mind. I don't doubt that the climate is warming and I don't doubt that man made effects are exacerbating the change... the question is by how much. I don't see any proof that the change isn't something cyclic that will occur regardless of man's contributions.

These cycles run in time frames of hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of years... and in reality we understand very little about why climate changes on earth occurred in the past... there's so many theories... meteorites, volcanic eruptions, earth axis tilt changes, magnetic reversals, etc., etc.

Personally, I see overpopulation as a much bigger threat to the earth than greenhouse gas will ever be.

I personally can't stand Al Gore, but to be factual, two points:

1) He never actually said he invented the internet. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp


2) I didn't see the movie; however, I think he probably got the prize not on his own accord, but because of the lack of other people to give it to. It seems all other leaders in this country are up to their necks in wars, laundering money in refrigerators, or seeking sex from men in airport bathrooms/from children/from prostitutes. By comparison, going out of your way to help any worldwide environmental cause seems "extraordinary".

At least narrows the field a bit, I would imagine...

First I will say I have not seen the movie. May be it's just a hype and false impression but it seems to me that the movie has contributed in a significant way to change in public attention all over the world (and possibly policies) in respect to environmental issues. It certainly isn't just the movie and thus the prize is shared with another entity which may have had an even greater role (yet w/o the movie would have probably failed to have as significant of an impact).

As far as whether this has anything to do with peace, it certainly does - a serious environmental crisis will quite likely cause a global chaos. As a matter of fact even a small change in availability of resources like water can lead to major conflicts (these are actually already happening). I believe everybody remembers the unpleasant events surrounding the hurricane Katrina. It doesn't matter whether it's caused by global warming or not, it's just an illustration on the effects that even small-scale environmental abnormalities can have on arguably first class civilized societies. There are worse examples, but this one is close to home and should've benefited from the very best in achievements society, technology and economics.

As far as Reagan goes - the prize went to Gorbachev, who actually had to make some very hard and dangerous decisions, unlike his western counterpart. Ending the cold war is easy, ending it in a somewhat peaceful manner is something that the Russians should get most of the credit for.

BTW who's Rush Limbaugh? I don't think I'm aware of any issues he's risen and I doubt the Nobel Commeetee is either. A lot in the world does not revolve around US and its internal politics.

I've left my personal opinion of Al Gore or any other person out of all this as I think it is completely irrelevant. I mean I tried to discuss their actions in the contest of this duscussion, not what else have they done or not done or how good or bad of a person they are.

Just my opinion - and I believe my arguments are rational - if they are wrong I'd be very interested in counterpoints.

Originally Posted by LarryK

And don't forget Jimmy Carter. The Nobel peace prize has been a joke for years. (Was Ronald Reagan ever nominated? If memory serves correctly, he had a bit to do with ending the cold war!)

Yeah-- Carter got far too much credit for that that brokering peace between two nations that hate each other thing.

While we're on the subject, there is an advert showing up on SRP for reducing Al Gores carbon credits by destroying one tree for every one of Al's carbon credits you wish to reverse! It is tongue in cheek humor, but I believe it highlights Gores hypocrisy effectively! I understand that he and his family use enough energy and fuel to power a small city!

where??? i'll help him out

but he's a politician by trade, isn't he? hypocrisy seems so prevalent there that one may think it's a prerequisite for the job... and apparently this transcends borders and time. when i've thought about this problem it has seemed to me that these people are essentially doomed - if they have to be effective they have to make compromises, very often significant ones. or is it called change in position? i suppose being in the spotlight and needing to please at minimum 50%+1 of the votes in order to keep the job, just excludes some luxuries many of us enjoy...

that's way off-topic... although many political leaders are in a position of significant power, swhich makes for a somewhat large pool of potential Nobel Peace Pize winners

Originally Posted by gugi

As far as Reagan goes - the prize went to Gorbachev, who actually had to make some very hard and dangerous decisions, unlike his western counterpart. Ending the cold war is easy, ending it in a somewhat peaceful manner is something that the Russians should get most of the credit for.

BTW who's Rush Limbaugh? I don't think I'm aware of any issues he's risen and I doubt the Nobel Commeetee is either. A lot in the world does not revolve around US and its internal politics.

Limbaugh is a political commentator on US radio....he is one of the "love him/loathe him" types....I have no use for him as he mainly seems to specialize on telling people who to blame for their problems...and like most critics in general, they "talk" but do not "do." He reminds me of the "Voice of London" character in "V for Vendetta." Do some internet searches...

As for Gore getting the Peace Prize...I was a bit confused as to what it had to do with Peace....hardly in the same realm as Dr. King or Gorbachev. I must agree that there is a big difference between standing in Berlin and saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" and being the one who had to do it. Politicians have a tendency to claim as theri own things which have been decades in coming. The Cold War ended because we outspend the Soviets....I can assure you they were not afraid of the US...they had some of the same trigger-happy types just as we did/do. It was a war with no clear battles, no parades, no monuments, only casualties. Sadly, th war ended and there were no safety nets...contributing in large part to the re-ignition of conflicts in the Balkans and Caucasus.

I do not agree with Gore's being awarded the prize and I think a lot of the eco-speak is alarmism and the Earth does change in cycles...one of them may end humanity as we know it. Still, sitting behind that 72 Ford pickup belching smoke has to make you wonder what damage we have done. (cough, cough)

Greg

Al Gore saving the planet, spending $30,000 per year on utilities

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Globa...2906888&page=1

Originally Posted by gugi

As far as Reagan goes - the prize went to Gorbachev, who actually had to make some very hard and dangerous decisions, unlike his western counterpart. Ending the cold war is easy, ending it in a somewhat peaceful manner is something that the Russians should get most of the credit for.

Originally Posted by WireBeard

I must agree that there is a big difference between standing in Berlin and saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" and being the one who had to do it. Politicians have a tendency to claim as theri own things which have been decades in coming.

This sort of logic is the same logic that rewards a naughty child for finally doing what he should have been doing all along instead of acknowledging the parents tireless work in trying to get the kid to act proper in the first place!

Good posts guys! Keep them coming!

I think it's fitting --- it goes along with Paris Hilton being picked as a most interesting person in some magazine or crappy music being given a Grammy. I wouldn't expect more actually. I think it has more to do with the topic and the polical correctness of the topic than anything. Even within the realms of environmental awareness, I'm sure someone else is more worthy than Al but he is the feel good hollywood tool right now. But I think it's fitting......

Justin

Wasn't Hitler nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?