Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize - Political Forum

Agrippina · 10-12-2007, 10:40 AM

Gore shares Nobel Peace Prize with U.N. panel - CNN.com

Well done. I am pleased for him.
how does everyone else feel.

Tim · 10-12-2007, 10:47 AM

The Nobel Peace Prize is perhaps the most prestigious award in the world. It has long and noble history. This is a strange and sad choice. In my naivete ( a misplaced idealism) I was not aware the prize was that politicized. I would have assumed that only the most rigorous scientific standards would be applied to the research done by the award winners. Yet in this case the award is given to this self-appointed leftist prophet - a blowhard.

Shame on them.

LessGovMrPrez · 10-12-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agrippina

Gore shares Nobel Peace Prize with U.N. panel - CNN.com

Well done. I am pleased for him.
how does everyone else feel.

I am still trying to figure out exactly what he did to cause peace? A British judge just ruled that if schools show his movie, that they must tell the kids about the no less than 11 lies he told in the movie. (I posted a topic about this down under the Environmental section here on the boards)

But this is what the Nobel Peace Prize has turned to. Just a shame of leftist groups giving each other high fives.

Diligent_d · 10-12-2007, 10:48 AM

Amazing. Well deserved.

Climate change is a reality.

LessGovMrPrez · 10-12-2007, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent_d

Amazing. Well deserved.

Climate change is a reality.

Yes but how does that bring about peace? Riddle me that?

Brother Oz · 10-12-2007, 11:08 AM

The Peace Prize increasingly has nothing to do with Peace. Whether or not Climate Change is real is irrelevant to this: as LessGov points out, what does his film have to do with Peace?
The prize is supposed to go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
Most Noble Prizes are given twenty or thirty years after the work in question was published, representing the fact that it has been completely accepted as a brilliant piece by the scientific or literary community. The Peace Prize is summarily chosen, often in the same year or the year after the event in question.
Some of the winners do make a lot of sense, you have people from organisations like the International Campaign to ban Landmines, or International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.
But why on earth should Yasser Arafat or Lê Ðức Thọ have got it?

donsutherland1 · 10-12-2007, 11:15 AM

LessGovMrPrez,

The Nobel Committe asserted that the impact of climate change could increase the risk of conflict. Hence, by publicizing the issue and promoting cooperation to mitigate it, the Committee infers, the risk of future conflict could be reduced.

Here's the Nobel Committee's rationale:

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.

LessGovMrPrez · 10-12-2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

[left]LessGovMrPrez,

The Nobel Committe asserted that the impact of climate change could increase the risk of conflict. Hence, by publicizing the issue and promoting coopertation to mitigate it, the Committee infers, the risk of future conflict could be reduced.

Climate change, in and of itself is violent right? Also, man cannot change global climate, so their explanation is a joke. The climate is always changing. Suddenly it has become some predictable measure of man waging war in the future? They talk about the scientists who say climate change is here, yet never discuss the scientists who refute it all as being some sudden drastic change.

So again, what has he done to cause peace? I mean other then filling his pockets with money from people buying into his carbon credit company scheme, how exactly does that promote peace?

AzTeK · 10-12-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

This is a strange and sad choice. In my naivete ( a misplaced idealism) I was not aware the prize was that politicized.

The Peace Nobel prize has been a highly politial award for years, if not decades. It has often been used to put pressure on governments and try to force change.

As to Al Gore...he's a man that doesn't seize to impress me, but as for the nobel prize...I'm not 100% sure there wouldn't been a better choice. But in the end, specially due to the fact that the UN Climate Council was also awarded the price, it undermines my view of the nobel peace prize not really honoring a person but more of an idea, an ideology.

Preventing climate change is as worthy as any other cause I could think of, considering it could theoretically lead to utter destruction of mankind ^^

After all, Al Gore almost singlehandedly managed to open the eyes of, as of now, probably not for much longer, the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases, if I'm not mistaken (the US, of course). That is definitely noteworthy!

AzTeK · 10-12-2007, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessGovMrPrez

Climate change, in and of itself is violent right? Also, man cannot change global climate, so their explanation is a joke. The climate is always changing. Suddenly it has become some predictable measure of man waging war in the future? They talk about the scientists who say climate change is here, yet never discuss the scientists who refute it all as being some sudden drastic change.

So again, what has he done to cause peace? I mean other then filling his pockets with money from people buying into his carbon credit company scheme, how exactly does that promote peace?

Sorry for the double post, but just to keep it structurised. What has been one of the main reasons wars have been fought in recent year? That would be....Oil. What is the main reason for the (prooven, there's no use in trying to deny it) humanmade Climate change? That would be...oil. Well, Fossil fuels in general, but you get the idea.

The sooner the world switches to alternative energy sources - oh and there are sooo many ways to produce clean energy without using fossil fuels - the sooner countries will keep waging wars over some stupid black goo.