Reply With Quote
Bush actually won the popular Nobel vote.
...did Algore do to warrant his receiving a Nobel Prize for Peace?
For the life of me, I can't make a connection between his bloviating over global war...er, global climate change...and the establishment of peace anywhere in the world. If anything, he is fomenting geopolitical tension with his nonsense.
Anyway...I thought the recipient was usually someone on who the Nobel Prize Committee could generally pin a real or imagined peaceful result; Arafat and his meaningless handshake with Begin for instance.
What did Algore do?
Bush actually won the popular Nobel vote.
And Chump has the obvious distinction of being the
"know it all" on the ST forum and being taken off of the
Moderator list
I'll try again...
So, exactly what did Algore do to warrant his receiving a Nobel Prize for Peace?
For the life of me, I can't make a connection between his bloviating over global war...er, global climate change...and the establishment of peace anywhere in the world. If anything, he is fomenting geopolitical tension with his nonsense.
Anyway...I thought the recipient was usually someone on who the Nobel Prize Committee could generally pin a real or imagined peaceful result; Arafat and his meaningless handshake with Begin for instance.
What did Algore do?
Yoni, you really don't expect a coherent answer to this
question do you?
I don't think there is one.
it must be disappointing that bush is worried about global warming.
Wrote some books, had a slideshow and a movie based on the slideshow that have the ulative effect of being a catalyst for international cooperation regarding the real issues of environmental preservation.
Maybe it doesn't take a whole lot -- I'm just glad it pisses you off.
And x has the obvious distinction of being too stupid to get a joke.
Al Gore was more deserving than the other nominee, Irena Sendler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler
<dripping of sarcasm>
According to Alfred Nobel's will, which defines the criteria for each of the Nobel awards, the Peace Prize should be awarded "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." By express language, the award certainly contemplates those whose acts appear to make the world safe from war; but the criteria are not limited to such individuals or groups. Instead, the criteria allow for recognizing those who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations."
The term "fraternity" has a fairly broad meaning -- certainly, it could be read to encompass efforts to protect the world from a known danger; indeed, the prize has been awarded to those who undertake efforts that might be described as more humanitarian than peaceful. For instance, in 2006, the prize was awarded to Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank "for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work," and in 1999, Médecins Sans Frontières of Switzerland won the Prize "in recognition of the organization's pioneering humanitarian work on several continents." There are many other examples.
I understand that Yonivore and others disagree with Gore on the global warming and will always see Gore's efforts as silly, at best. Obviously, there are many scientists who are very capable professionals who engage in the global warming debate in an earnest discussion of scientific fact. It would be difficult to convince any but the most ardent warming opponents that they lack a scientific basis for their concerns. And it would be difficult to convince most of the world that concerns about global warming are invalid in every respect. As such, since there is a reasonable debate about global warming's effect on our planet and since efforts to curb global warming could be reasonably seen as humanitarian efforts aimed at furthering fraternity among the nations, recognizing the work of those who fight global warming by the award of a Nobel Peace prize is understandable. That work, even if limited to an effort to bring the issues of global warming to the public in a format that is widely-available, provides a basis for the award, I think.
That, or it speaks volumes to the unwillingness of any major players on the world stage to do a damned thing to make a real difference in places like Darfur.
Al Gore has helped put the US and the world on notice about global warming. It is not hard to predict a great deal of strife as global warming continues.
Of course in this day and age of truthiness, you can find numerous authoritative-sounding naysayers who can ignore the evidence that it is happening before our eyes. Because these naysayers are largely Republican, once the evidence becomes impossible for even US voters to ignore, it will put the GOP in a deep hole for a long time. Even BushCo has turned on this issue, though proposing anything that involves any amount of sacrifice is beyond them. Ditto for the Republican candidates.
What makes California so liberal? Here is my hypothesis. Anyone who has been there, especially in the LA area, can easily see that we are not putting good things into the air, and we have a pressing need to do something about it. When bad things are happening and the "conservatives" deny it and oppose measures to do anything about it, it is not hard to conclude that reality has a "liberal" bias.
It'll all seem pretty silly when, in 15 years, the planet is cooling again and those places that have experienced extended growing seasons because of the moderate warming are feeding the planet.
Sure it is. One could easily predict a great deal of benefit from a warmer cliamate.
What is the ideal climate for this planet? Maybe we need growing seasons in Greenland -- again.
You need to make up your mind whether or not you're going to talk about toxic pollutants or climate changing emissions.
I'm not expressing an opinion regarding the merits of Gore's selection -- I'm merely offering a theory for why he would be deserving of the award. Again, it seems as though one side or the other is going to be screaming about this issue for the foreseeable future, since global changes aren't generally marked on year-by-year timetables. There's enough proof of warming to alarm some scientists; there isn't enough proof to convince others that this is anything more than an ecological and climatological phenomenon that would occur with or without man. I'd honestly be surprised if anyone could reach a conclusive answer to these questions within my lifetime.
But I also don't see why there's such an unwillingness in some corners to undertake reasonable limitations upon the amounts of chemicals and pollutants that we put into our ecosystem -- it's a bit like being told that you're in danger of having a heart attack and choosing to devour plates of french fries at every meal after that diagnosis.
No, I understood that and I appreciate your logical approach to the award. However, the Nobel Committee has tortured credulity in the past in order to make political statements. This year is no exception.
Oh, I think they will. Truth will out...this isn't that hard of an equation were it not for the strong political winds that have carried the topic into the realm of silliness.
Global cooling of the 1970's was pretty much discounted in our lifetime. Anthropogenic Global Climate Change will bend to the will of scientific fact soon enough.
Well, Kyoto isn't reasonable. Much of what is being proposed by the Algore crowd is neither reasonable nor is it something they, themselves, are willing to undertake.
Another reason Mr. "enormous-$12,000-a-month-electric-bill-carbon-footprint" has no credibility on the issue.
global cooling was never widely accepted by the scientific community, and it was never treated as a viable theory. you should probably stop using that example because it just doesn't work.
maybe because he has brought attention to it. the globe is warming.. that was easy.
Please, how old were you when they [scientific concensus] was predicting an ice age in our lifetime?
This is the same scientific concensus (a relatively new standard of proof) that now claims we're headed for an intolerable warming period.
Actually, there are indications the globe stopped warming about 10 years ago.
it was one magazine article and some stories on the news, and that was it. It never picked up traction among scientists, but it did make for good tv. apparently, you were suckered by the hype.
Actually, I wasn't. I was as skeptical of global cooling as I am of this current fad.
But, you're wrong. It was no more, nor less, "hyped" than is the current global crisis.
you have a real hard-on for Gore. so how do you feel about Bush jumping to the other side on this issue?
It may have been hyped the media, but it was not accepted among the scientific community in the way global warming has been. It sounds to me like your major beef is with the amount of media/political attention given to global warming.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
