Al Gore and IPCC gets the Nobel Peace Prize for their work on climate change.
What ramifications will this have?
oo i never said gore isn't a good man...i'm just kinda peeved he won not on academia but ....well...how do i gather it ...on..bling! :-\There are many nobel prizes. Gore and the IPCC did not win the nobel prize for science, they won the peace prize for their efforts to spread the word.
How could someone that buys pollution credits for their mansion win an award for increasing awareness about global warming?
How could someone that buys pollution credits for their mansion win an award for increasing awareness about global warming?So the only way to effectively spread the word that a threat exists from global warming is to ignore the current system for pollution management (credits) and heat/power his home with sunlight and flatulence?
How could someone that buys pollution credits for their mansion win an award for increasing awareness about global warming?
There are many nobel prizes. Gore and the IPCC did not win the nobel prize for science, they won the peace prize for their efforts to spread the word.
That puts Gore in this company:
Jimmy Carter
Kofi Annan
Nelson Mandela
Gorbachev
Desmond Tutu
Lech Walesa
Mother Teresa
Martin Luther King Jr.
Albert Schweitzer
For one, he didn't murder 700,000+ people like Bush.
The death of Irony--when Henry Kissinger won the Peace Prize.
you forgot yasser arafat...and henry kissinger...two very ungreat people there..
Yes....of course he did ::)What are you talking about?
Oh brother!
Gore won the "Peace Prize".......Bwaahahahahahahah aha!! WTF has he done for humanity, I'll find the artical, but he basically advocated for people in poor countries to stay poor because if they had power (electricity, etc) there would be more people "harming" the environment....Peace prize is supposed to be about humanity.....it's a complete liberal joke and it started with Arafat and Carter.
He won that based on that inconclusive movie based on lies and scare tactics!
Gore won the "Peace Prize".......Bwaahahahahahahah aha!! WTF has he done for humanity, I'll find the artical, but he basically advocated for people in poor countries to stay poor because if they had power (electricity, etc) there would be more people "harming" the environment....Peace prize is supposed to be about humanity.....it's a complete liberal joke and it started with Arafat and Carter.
He won that based on that inconclusive movie based on lies and scare tactics!
Gore won the "Peace Prize".......Bwaahahahahahahah aha!! WTF has he done for humanity, I'll find the artical, but he basically advocated for people in poor countries to stay poor because if they had power (electricity, etc) there would be more people "harming" the environment....Peace prize is supposed to be about humanity.....it's a complete liberal joke and it started with Arafat and Carter.
He won that based on that inconclusive movie based on lies and scare tactics!
Hey Joe,
Can you post the link to that article - I'd like to read it.
Thanks
He's a born leader and ahead of his time.
There are many nobel prizes. Gore and the IPCC did not win the nobel prize for science, they won the peace prize for their efforts to spread the word.
That puts Gore in this company:
Jimmy Carter
Kofi Annan
Nelson Mandela
Gorbachev
Desmond Tutu
Lech Walesa
Mother Teresa
Martin Luther King Jr.
Albert Schweitzer
Ok split hairs. Bush's War Machine has resulted 650,000 Iraqi deaths. Thus, Bush is ultimately responsibe for every death.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/al_gore_and_the_mission_of_the.html
ok - I've read it twice and I don't see any quotes from Gore about advocating that poor people should go without electricity or stay poor.
What I do see are a few short quotes from a book Gore wrote in 1982 (25 years ago) and then the author of the article giving his own opinion and interpretation of those quotes. The rest of the article is about DDT and Malaria and the most recent quote Gore are seven words taken out of context from 1996 (11 years ago) but still nothing from Gore saying that poor people should stay that way or go without electricity.
btw - the author of the article is a policy director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute which until recently received big $$$ from Exxon and which has basically said that global warming/climate change etc.. is a myth and that rising CO2 levels are actually a good thing
There are many nobel prizes. Gore and the IPCC did not win the nobel prize for science, they won the peace prize for their efforts to spread the word.
That puts Gore in this company:
Jimmy Carter
Kofi Annan
Nelson Mandela
Gorbachev
Desmond Tutu
Lech Walesa
Mother Teresa
Martin Luther King Jr.
Albert Schweitzer
Oh let's play the Sesame Street game. One of these is not like the other. :) Gore in the same breath with Mandela, Gorbachev, Mother Teresa, MLK?? ?? !! Ah . . . no.Check your sources Mr. Hooper, they are all peace prize winners.
As an FFi distributor, I'd be a lying hypocrite if I said I didn't agree with this particular statement highlighted above.
Global Warming, and rising CO2 levels are actually good things for those of us who know how to spot opportunity, ...and when you have the worldwide exclusive distribution rights to a proven product that can actually address this problem, and combat vehicularly-caused pollution, ...it's a golden opportunity for those of us who not only recognize it, ...but also ACT ON IT!
The ancient sanskrit symbol for a challenge or stumbling block, when flipped, translates to dangerous opportunity.
So I have to agree with the man when he says these are good things. All great companies meet a need, or solve a problem, ...so from my perspective, being in a position to provide financial opportunity to people, providing a way to save money on fuel costs while reducing our dependency on foreign oil, helping people's engines perform better, and at the same time helping to save the environment is a grand slam home-run. Something that wouldn't be possible if it were not for escalating fuel prices, global warming, and rising CO2 levels. So yeah, ...in that regard, ...it has been a very good thing for me. 8)
Check your sources Mr. Hooper, they are all peace prize winners.
I think Al Gore reminds Conservatives of the illegitimacy of the Bush presidency from the beginning.
I think Al Gore's achievements remind Conservatives of how utterly incompetent Bush is.
;D ;D ;D
Well at least all his hot air comes out of a plane exhaust,
...unlike some cowboys who are all hat and no cattle, and spew nothing but hot air every time they open their mouths..
Please list some of Gore's accomplishments during the 8 year tenure as VP. :)
Please list some of Gore's accomplishments during the 8 year tenure as VP. :)I'll go one further than that.
[chuckle] . . . :)Let's not forget the 1998-2000 War on Gore by the "liberal" media.
He's a born loser. Clinton practically handed him the presidency. Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. He'll probably waste the capital he has from winning this award.
I'll go one further than that.
Could you list any accomplishment by any vice president in the last 50 years?
Accomplishments are not part of the job description.
Here's the answer to your question: Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in passing the Clinton Budget. Thanks to that budget, the government eliminated the deficit and was paying down the national debt.
Let's not forget the 1998-2000 War on Gore by the "liberal" media.
Remember the substantive criticisms of Gore?
He sighed during the debate
He wore earth tones
Was he an alpha male?
He invented the internet
He said Love Story was modeled on he and his wife
He discovered Love Canal
He's a know-it-all
He's fat
"Liberal" columnist hag Maureen Dowd wrote a series of articles on a discussion btn Gore and his baldspot.
________________________ _________________
While the "liberal" media savaged Gore, Bush got a free ride pretty much.
Bush lied about his platform on several occasions during the debates but no one called him on it
Bush did not know Social Security was a federal program. But that's charming ignorance.
Due in large part to the "liberal" media's attack on Gore, Bush--this historic disgrace--is still president.
Congratulations on your "winner".
But the American people got it right. Gore simply wasn't good enough to win. It really shouldn't have been a close race. He should have won going away.
It wouldn't have been close but for the media deciding to report on a 20 year old DUI story the weekend before the election.
Kind of ironic that he couldn't carry his home state and people are still crying about hanging chads.
Thank you. I've been saying that for years. If he wins his home state he wins the presidency even if he loses Florida. How sad is that?
Funny joke, there was also a repeal of a tax on the phones related to some spanish war included thee. Sure, balancing the budget was a great idea but you really aren't a big enough idiot to think he had any freedom to vote against it.Constitutionally, he could have voted any way he chose but he was an advocate for the Clinton budget from the beginning so your point really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I agree that most vice presidents are useless as tits on boar hogs. I was just hoping you cold point out some small way where he was less useless than the others.
But the American people got it right. Gore simply wasn't good enough to win. It really shouldn't have been a close race. He should have won going away.Why should he have won going away? That makes no sense.
Thank you. I've been saying that for years. If he wins his home state he wins the presidency even if he loses Florida. How sad is that?It's not sad at all. Tennesse is a republican state. Gore was out of the state 8 years as vp and his senate seat was occupied largely by republicans.
Regardless of what Gore did as a Vice President, or his failure to become the next president, he's been very successful in his mission to bring attention to global warming, and the problems that comes with it.wow. You really have a great perspective.
Lots of people have accused Gore of trying to use his environmental agenda as a platform to launch a new bid for presidency, which he's repeatedly denied he will do. Last night on Norwegian television was the latest time he said he wasn't gonna run BTW.
Ad hominem attacks on Gore that he's a "loser", "fat", et al, serves no intellectual purpose.
Regardless of what I think of Gore on other issues (and I disagree with him on plenty) I will give Gore lots of credit for helping making our environment being a bigger part of the daily agenda.
Only a year ago, a lot of people would claim that the global warming was only propaganda.
Not so now.
Gore will never entirely be accepted by all Americans I guess, although it seems like he's trying to distance himself from party politics.
But I think any American should be proud that a fellow citizen received the Nobel Peace Prize.
I know I would be if a Swede won it.
Why should he have won going away? That makes no sense.
There is a reason we have elections.
It's not sad at all. Tennesse is a republican state. Gore was out of the state 8 years as vp and his senate seat was occupied largely by republicans.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
Harlan Mathews (D)1993-1994
Fred Thompson (R) 1994-2003
Lamar Alexander (R) 2003---
I think the thing that concerns me the most about your position, that he's a "loser" is that it flies in the face of the fact that he won the popular vote and that under any circumstance, when all the votes in florida were tallied, he won florida too. Gore was right about Iraq, battling terrorism, SS, and host of other issues. While president Cheney was wrong. I mean Bush.
The only reason Bush is in the whitehouse from 2000 is b/c of the worst legal decision in Supreme Court history---Bush v. Gore.
Makes sense to me:Gore could have been Christ Himself and the "liberal" media's incessant bashing would still take him down a peg.
1. Clinton was one of the most popular presidents in U.S. history.
2. Gore served two terms as VP for one of the most popular presidents in U.S. history.
3. Gore had plenty of money.
4. Gore had name recognition.
5. Gore had a solid military record.
6. Bush was a very weak candidate.
7. As you said, "Bush lied about his platform on several occasions during the debates," and "Bush did not know Social Security was a federal program."
8. You previously said Gore handily beat Bush in the debates.
That should have = runaway victory. Instead, he lost. Even Bill Clinton blasted Gore for blowing a gift wrapped presidency. Losers find ways to lose.
Gore could have been Christ Himself and the "liberal" media's incessant bashing would still take him down a peg.
Bush had better financing, was horrible at the debates, and embarrassed himself whenever he spoke for more than 5 minutes.
But the press viewed him as "a guy you'd like to have a beer with"...."honest, w/ no messy cleanup or aftertaste..."
Propaganda works.
Whatever Bush raised paled in comparison to the name recognition Gore had serving for one of the most popular presidents in American history. He had a huge amount of capital. Even Clinton blamed Gore for blowing it.It says more about how effective common national scripts can knock any candidate down. Gore was supposed to be a serial exaggerator? Come on. Stories had to be invented and words put into his mouth to prove that point. And to this day tools like Fred Barnes and Chris Matthews keep the lies rolling about inventing the internet, earth tones, etc.
You're only proving my point Decker. If Bush was "horrible at the debates, and embarrassed himself whenever he spoke for more than 5 minutes" and still beat Gore, what does that say about Gore?
Also, didn't Gore let Ralph Nadar steal enough votes from Gore to lose Florida? Ralph Nadar??
That should have = runaway victory. Instead, he lost. Even Bill Clinton blasted Gore for blowing a gift wrapped presidency. Losers find ways to lose.
THe Effect? - IT CHEAPENS THE NOBEL PRIZE!
But so did Arafat and Carter. ANd even the fact fools put "Tookie" Williams in the mix. ::)
Please.........
What is politically correct about man's industrial activity exacerbating global warming?
We're on the same page, see my reply # 42 ("effects? Of course, the award is de-valued and politicized").
Man-made global warming is an issue which: (1) there is a split among scientists, not a consensus, if anything, the trend is scientists leaning in the opposite direction; and (2) is a cause celeb among "limosine liberals" and anti-American anti-capitalists.
As such, when the Nobel prize decides to award a prize for their work on global warming, it is unmasked as a leftist politcal award and should no longer be held in the same esteem as it once was. The award should go to scientists who are debunking the theory in the face of political pressure and the PC forces.
What is politically correct about man's industrial activity exacerbating global warming?
What is "PC" is when respected scientists who disagree and point to valid evidence are ostracized by their left-leaning peers.Let those respected scientists submit their papers to peer review then. Let the papers be published alongside those of the proponents.
You touch an interesting topic, Gore has met with both Edwards and Obama, but not with H. Clinton, to discuss politics in the campaign.
A lot of people would think that Gore's recent success would favor Clinton, but Gore's distanced himself from them ever since losing the election, blaming a lot of the loss on Bill Clinton's history of womanizing.
Which, from what I recall, is fairly historically accurate. A lot of people was pissed off with Clinton's affair's, and "wanted to re-establish the presidency".
I don't see Gore having any direct part of helping Hillary Clinton winning the election TBH. Indirectly, he may be a factor, in that she will look even more conservative by NOT getting his support.
Ironically, that may help her get swing votes.
Of course, now I am speculating, almost CT-style. ;D
Pardon, mon amis.
Let those respected scientists submit their papers to peer review then. Let the papers be published alongside those of the proponents.
From where I'm sitting, generally the vested energy interests hire credentialed hitmen to write opinion pieces decrying global warming.
The cigarette industry used to do that with doctors too. In fact, years ago, the cigarette industry would routinely use free agent doctors to hawk smokes.
Doctors, American Medical Association hawked cigarettes as healthy for consumers http://www.newstarget.com/021949.html
Clinton's approval rating reached its highest point at 73% approval in the aftermath of the impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999.[60]
Peer reviewed, independent non-corporate funded research, you mean sort of like this? (these stories come out all the time, you only need to open your eyes to them)Well fantastic then. I guess it's that old 'liberal' media with its foot on the throat of truth again.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.
Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com:
Well fantastic then. I guess it's that old 'liberal' media with its foot on the throat of truth again.
I've seen some of these articles that refute GW. I've also read articles that point out the weakenesses in those refutations. It turns into a numbers game.
500 scientists against man's role in GW and the rest of the scientific universe for man's role in GW.
There are still flat earth societies out there too.
There's a hell of alot more than 500 scientists who disagree. I gave you theI find it amusing that your appreciation of the truth just happens to coincide with the minority interests of the Big Energy Industry.
"tip of the iceberg."
I find it amusing that you analogize these respected scientists to members of "flat earth societies" which sort of makes my point about PC-types installing an orthodoxy which you dare not stray. As far as your quote "it's that old 'liberal' media with its foot on the throat of truth again" I say "Many a truth has been spoken in jest...."
I find it amusing that your appreciation of the truth just happens to coincide with the minority interests of the Big Energy Industry.
The GW nay-sayers are a very noisy and very tiny minority standing at odds with the scientific community around the world.
It is an undeniable truth that scientific consensus supports man's role in making GW worse.
Like I said, there are flat-earthers, supply-siders and GW antagonists.
"Undeniable truth?""Algore"...that's hysterical.
Wrong again, you sound like Algore!
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af
See "They call this a consensus?
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, June 02, 2007
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled." So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable
Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent."
What does global climate change - something that has happened cyclically throughout the millions of years the earth has existed - have to do with world peace?
All this does is to further de-value the Nodel Prize, something that was once highly revered around the world.
"Algore"...that's hysterical.
Do you want to re-think your minority position?
I don't have a position, minority or otherwise (not being a scientist) other than I don't marginalize respected, independent scientists who dare defy the PC forces. Here is but a small sampling of the people you, and your PC bretheren are trying to belittle as being "flat earthers" . . . EnjoyYou and your Big Energy brothers in principle are in the tiny minority.
....
Your posting 8 true believers does nothing to help your case that your view is in the distinct minority of the scientific community.
You and your Big Energy brothers in principle are in the tiny minority.
I won't beat this horse to death, but if you believed the false poll that you cited, what's to keep you from buying all the other BS out there supporting your minority position.
You want to believe b/c it is politically expedient for you to do so.
Your posting 8 true believers does nothing to help your case that your view is in the distinct minority of the scientific community.
We are two ships passing in the night. I am not a climatologist. That's why I listen to the scientific consensus on the topic of GW.
Again, there is a hell of alot more than eight (there is only so much space to try to open your eyes and make you relaize that you and your PC bretheren are standing in the way of legitimate science with an Inquisition-type atmosphere. I;m going to try, one last time to open your mind . . .
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
"Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT"
By the way, Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, another "flat earth hack" I suppose.
We are two ships passing in the night. I am not a climatologist. That's why I listen to the scientific consensus on the topic of GW.
I have no ax to grind. I'm not a PC zombie.
I am merely agreeing with the scientific consensus.
Yours is an uphill battle to turn that tide of consensus.
Your posting 8 true believers does nothing to help your case that your view is in the distinct minority of the scientific community.
So you say there is a consensus, but a professor of atmospheric science at MIT says there is no consensus. It doesn't sound like an "uphill battle" to me.There are literally thousands of climatologists that are at odds with you. http://www.ucsusa.org/
As far as not having a PC axe to grind, your ad hominem attacks on respected men and women of distinction who happen to diasagree with global warming are littered throughout your prior posts.