Thread: Nobel peace prize

I'm sorry, too, Dmitri... I'm very sorry... *All right*, you're sorrier than I am, but I am as sorry as well... I am as sorry as you are, Dmitri! Don't say that you're more sorry than I am, because I'm capable of being just as sorry as you are... So we're both sorry, all right?... All right.

one of my all time favorites
or how about this

-- Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
-- Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

Originally Posted by azjoe

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.

Wow, beat me to the punch. I're read much to the same effect, that global warming is mearly a cycle that the earth goes through (I won't say we aren't helping a bit).

well, it may well be a cycle, although the data that I've seen (not in a movie in actual scientific presentations) the systematic changes are on time scale that very strongly correlates with both specific human activity and periods extremely close to past cataclysms. Neither of which is good and I'd rather it be the first case as the second would suggest there may be only few hundred years or so before the overpopulation problem is solved for good. And of course I've read propositions that the real answer to a potential problem we don't have the technology how to solve is to wait until we have such a technology, but new technologies don't just happen out of the blue and they are really expensive to develop to boot.

In any case I think in case of doubt we should be taking a proactive role to the best of our knowledge and try to provide as much negative feedback to a system that seems to be going unstable as possible. Even if objectively (which can only be told in hindight) it tuns out to be useless.

But of course everybody would prefer somebody else to be paying the cost. Both developed and developing worlds have their arguments of why the other party is the one that should be the one to put more effort.

Originally Posted by gugi

one of my all time favorites
or how about this

Doctor Strangelove......Slim Pickens on the bomb, riding it like a bronco....and I bet we all know someone we can picture doing that.