Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize

[ISiddiqui]

Well, him and the UN's IPCC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/world/13nobel.html?hp

October 13, 2007

Gore and U.N. Panel Win Peace Prize for Climate Work

By WALTER GIBBS
OSLO, Oct. 12 — The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded today to Al Gore, the former American vice president, and to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their work to alert the world to the threat of global warming.

The award is likely to renew calls by some of Mr. Gore’s supporters for him to run for president in 2008, joining an already crowed field of Democrats. Mr. Gore and his aides have said he is not interesting in running, but they have not flatly rejected the notion.

Mr. Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, "is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted,” the Nobel citation said. The United Nations committee, a network of 2,000 scientists, has produced two decades of scientific reports that have “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming,” the citation said.
Mr. Gore, who was traveling in San Francisco, said in a statement that he was deeply honored to receive the prize and planned to donate his half of the prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit climate group of which Mr. Gore chairs the board.

“We face a true planetary emergency,” Mr. Gore said in the statement. “The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.”

Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, said he received the news with his wife, Tipper, early this morning in San Francisco, where he spoke on Thursday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, a fellow Democrat.

During he speech on Thursday night, Mr. Gore made no mention of any future presidential plans, but he has indicated in the past that he will not run. Ms. Kreider said Mr. Gore will hold strategy meetings with the Alliance for Climate Protection in San Francisco today and returns home to Nashville, TN over the weekend.

In New Delhi, Rajendra K. Pachauri, an Indian scientist who leads the United Nations committee, said he was overwhelmed at the news of the award. “I expect this will bring the subject to the fore,” he said.
“I’m only a symbol of a much larger organization, the IPCC, and it’s really the scientific community that contributed to the work of the IPCC,” Dr. Pachauri said, according to Reuters. “They’re the real winners of this award,’” he said.

Mr. Gore said he would donate the proceeds from his award to the environmental cause.

"My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis."

The Nobel award carries political ramifications in the United States, which the Nobel committed tried to minimize after its announcement today.
The chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Ole Danbolt Mjoes, addressed reporters after the awards were announced and tried to dismiss repeated questions asking whether the awards were a criticism — direct or indirect — of the Bush administration.

He said the committee was making an appeal to the entire world to unite against the threat of global warming.

"We would encourage all countries, including the big countries, to challenge, all of them, to think again and to say what can they do to conquer global warming. The bigger the powers, the better that they come in front of this.”

He said the peace prize is only a message of encouragement, adding, "the Nobel committee has never given a kick in the leg to anyone."

In this decade the Nobel Peace Prize has been given to prominent people and agencies who differ on a range of issues with the Bush administration, including Jimmy Carter and Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the United Nations’ nuclear monitoring agency in Vienna.

Global warming has been a powerful issue all this year, attracting more and more public attention.

Mr. Gore’s film "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary about global warming, won an Academy Award this year. The United Nations committee has issued repeated reports and held successive conferences to highlight the growing scientific understanding of the problem. At the same time, signs of global warming are more and more apparent, even in the melting Arctic.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming "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."

The Bay Area has been the staging area for an online movement to draft the former vice president for another campaign for the White House. A San Francisco-based website, www.Draftgore.com, claims more than 165,000 signatures and comments on an online petition, including several placed early this morning congratulating Mr. Gore on his win. The same group also placed a full-page advertisement in the New York Times on Wednesday, pleading with Mr. Gore to rectify his bitter defeat in 2000, when he won the national popular vote but lost the electoral college after the Supreme Court ruled against a recount in Florida. “I’ll actually vote for you this time,” wrote one signee, Joshua Kadel of Virginia, on the website this morning. “Sorry about 2000!”

Mr. Gore has an apartment in San Francisco, where his daughter Kristin lives. The city is also the headquarters of Current TV, Mr. Gore’s television and online news venture.

Others dedicated to the fight against global warming said the winners were at the head of the pack.

Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the body based in Bonn, Germany, that oversaw negotiations that led to the Kyoto Protocol, said recent moves by political leaders across the world to find ways of reducing emissions would have been hard to imagine without the contributions made by both the IPCC and by Mr. Gore.

"We can recommend ways for policymakers to move forward, but without the IPCC data being there ,this would be next to impossible," said Mr. de Boer. He said Mr. Gore could use his enhanced stature from winning the Nobel Peace Prize next to focus on parts of the developing world where politicians need support to spread knowledge about the dangers of climate change. "It’s very difficult to advance on these issues without support from the general public," he said.

Jan Egeland, a Norwegian peace mediator and former senior United Nations official for humanitarian affairs, called climate change more than an environmental issue.

"It is a question of war and peace," Mr. Egeland, now director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo, told the Associated Press. "We’re already seeing the first climate wars, in the Sahel belt of Africa." He said nomads and herders are in conflict with farmers because the changing climate has brought drought and a shortage of fertile lands.

Jesse McKinley contributed reporting from San Francisco and James Kanter contributed reporting from Paris. The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Interesting link there at the end to climate change leading to wars over scarce resources. While that most definately is a concern, after all, wars have been fought for resources for centuries and an increasing scarcity will lead to more battles for those resources, this award seems to follow the more recent ones, such as the one given for the guy who created microloans, which are tangentially related to 'peace'.

Then again, maybe I shouldn't say it is a recent phenomenon because Mother Teresa recieved one in 1979, and I'm not exactly sure what she did for peace.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Interesting link there at the end to climate change leading to wars over scarce resources. While that most definately is a concern, after all, wars have been fought for resources for centuries and an increasing scarcity will lead to more battles for those resources, this award seems to follow the more recent ones, such as the one given for the guy who created microloans, which are tangentially related to 'peace'.

The benefit of having a deep understanding of the interconnectedness of events is that it becomes relatively clear how non-tangental many things are to peace. If climate conditions are such that droughts make it impossible for countries to feed their people, disease and war tend to follow. What Gore and the IPCC's work has done is bring attention to the fact that there is nothing else that can affect more people worldwide than negative climate change. Because of the actions of men like Gore, history will at least give us credit for confronting the issue -- one of the few things we as a country are trying to get right in this new century.

[gstelmack]

The Peace Prize for fighting global warming? Are they insane?

I won't get into the global warming debate, but that connection to scarce resources causing wars and global warming leading to scarce resources is pretty darn tenuous.

Apparently the Nobel Prize folks are trying to make themselves irrelevant.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Apparently the Nobel Prize folks are trying to ensure that they remain irrelevant.

Fixed that for you.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

The benefit of having a deep understanding of the interconnectedness of events is that it becomes relatively clear how non-tangental many things are to peace. If climate conditions are such that droughts make it impossible for countries to feed their people, disease and war tend to follow. What Gore and the IPCC's work has done is bring attention to the fact that there is nothing else that can affect more people worldwide than negative climate change. Because of the actions of men like Gore, history will at least give us credit for confronting the issue -- one of the few things we as a country are trying to get right in this new century.

I'm not a scientist, but I have to say, I don't understand the correlation between global warming and droughts. Wouldn't there be MORE water vapor in the air if global warming occurs? Wouldn't there therefore be more rainfall? Sure, the locations of the rain may be different, but that occurs naturally anyway.

I guess fighting global warming will slow down the changes in rainfall location and therefore give mankind enough time to adjust?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I won't get into the global warming debate, but that connection to scarce resources causing wars and global warming leading to scarce resources is pretty darn tenuous.

Well, it's better than the fighting poverty reduces wars awards (Mother Theresa in '79, Mohammed Yunis last year).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

What Gore and the IPCC's work has done is bring attention to the fact that there is nothing else that can affect more people worldwide than negative climate change.

I hadn't heard. Is there positive climate change? I think it's too hot in Florida. I'm scheduling a Nova Scotia beach vacation for next summer.

FWIW.......I don't see any problem with cleaning up our act in regards to pollution, but this global warming hub-bub is mostly politically motivated.

[Maple Leafs]

How does Bono not have one of these yet?

[Buccaneer]

Everything is inter-connected, esp. if you choose to where to look.

[NoMyths]

gstelsmack: if the wheat harvest of a country is decimated by drought, forcing them to rely on other countries for food -- along with whatever price and concessions go with it -- one can see how climate change can destabilize peace. Or if increased major hurricanes disrupt global oil shipping and processing, as with Hurricane Katrina. Or any number of other things that can disrupt the global economy due to environmental factors. After all, what do you think causes war? People just not liking each other for popularity reasons? Overpopulation and resource acquisition are two of the leading causes, and both of those are directly affected by environmental concerns.

Mizzou: I would consider positive climate change anything that would begin to slow or reverse the effects of the current negative climate change, which is being driven by man.

Finally: you'll note that I'm referring to climate change, and not "global warming". It's not just about things getting warmer -- climate change is far more pervasive than just a hot summer in Florida.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

How does Bono not have one of these yet?

+1

It's apparently cool to live the high life and speak of something tenuous and indirect than actually getting ones hands dirty with the real problems facing the poor in the most poorest of countries.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Everything is inter-connected, esp. if you choose to where to look.

You're right, it is. Some things affect other parts of the puzzle in larger ways than others, of course, and there is nothing that could potentially affect more areas of human society than climate change.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Mizzou: I would consider positive climate change anything that would begin to slow or reverse the effects of the current negative climate change, which is being driven by man.

Finally: you'll note that I'm referring to climate change, and not "global warming". It's not just about things getting warmer -- climate change is far more pervasive than just a hot summer in Florida.

You can call it what you want. I don't see any problem with the idea of reducing pollution, but the whole 'peace is achieved through a "greener" Earth' is a load of hogwash. A far greater cause of wars are leaders who care about nothing more than their own wealth and power and would favor that over any moves to actually help their people and improve their farming and irrigation methods to feed those currently in a drought or arid region. Wars are created by hatred and ignorance, not lack of food. If I had a dime for every leader who started a war to get food, I'd be dirt poor.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You can call it what you want. I don't see any problem with the idea of reducing pollution, but the whole 'peace is achieved through a "greener" Earth' is a load of hogwash. A far greater cause of wars are leaders who care about nothing more than their own wealth and power and would favor that over any moves to actually help their people and improve their farming and irrigation methods to feed those currently in a drought or arid region. Wars are created by hatred and ignorance, not lack of food. If I had a dime for every leader who started a war to get food, I'd be dirt poor.

Don't forget religion.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I won't get into the global warming debate, but that connection to scarce resources causing wars and global warming leading to scarce resources is pretty darn tenuous.

Can I get a clarification here?

Which of the following connections are you saying is tenuous:

1. Scarce Resources -> Wars

2. Global Warming -> Scarce Resources

3. Global Warming -> Wars

I don't think anyone can argue against #1. History is chocked full of examples of wars over scarce resources.

#2 may be more tricky. I think the argument here is that having reasonable access to resources (oil, potable water, food) is a significant component of peace. When a key resource suddenly (not necessarily gradually) is more scarce, it follows that there's a much greater likelihood for conflict.

Let's take a simple example. Let's say Country A has a big lake and a river that runs out of it and into Country B. Let's say the river runs through Country B and into the ocean and that, for the sake of argument, Country B doesn't understand desalinization. Country A gets the vast majority of its drinking water from the lake and Country B gets the vast majority of its drinking water from the river.

Let's say one year it's abnormally hot and water levels in the lake drop a lot and the river slows to a trickle. What's Country B going to do? Well, maybe they ask Country A to share some of the lake water, and both countries ration themselves a lot, but maybe Country A tells Country B to go stuff itself and *bang*, conflict. Due to a sudden change in the availability of a resource, the potential for conflict has risen.

So, back to #2's argument. The idea here is that sudden, not gradual, climate change puts greater stress on the availability of resources due to things like potable water being less available in certain areas, oil being more in demand to run HVAC system (for areas that are either hotter or colder), etc.... The argument still rests on the belief/understanding that global warming does cause sudden (relatively-speaking) climate change, or at least climate change at a pace at which humanity cannot adapt its resource needs fast enough.

Anyway, does that make sense?

Apparently the Nobel Prize folks are trying to make themselves irrelevant.

Well, the physics prize was just given to the guys who applied quantum physics to hard drive, resulting in the much faster hard drives we've been using for almost a decade now, so I'd say that's pretty relevant.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I won't get into the global warming debate, but that connection to scarce resources causing wars and global warming leading to scarce resources is pretty darn tenuous.

Leaving the global warming debate aside for a moment...

Well, as someone else has said, there are many examples in history of wars fought over resource scarcity. There are many in the IR community who believe that the next war in the middle east will be fought over water and not oil. Think about the controversy engendered by how water rights in the Colorado River basin are apportioned... now what if the parties involved had guns and a historical tendency to use them? For example, what if a nation further upstream decides to dam the Jordan river, limiting one of Israel's key sources of water? I believe that Syria is building a dam on one of the Jordan's tributaries right now.

Remember too, the 1967 war broke out in part over plans to divert the Jordan River--and, Israel managed to secure the whole of the Sea of Galilee (Israel's #1 source of water) for themselves when they captured the Golan Heights.

[path12]

Good for him.

[Surtt]

"Judge rules Gore's film an inconvenient catalogue of errors"
hxxp://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/11/gore_errors/

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Surtt

"Judge rules Gore's film an inconvenient catalogue of errors"
hxxp://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/11/gore_errors/

Great misrepresentation of the Judge's ruling. The judge ruled that the overall premise and main claims were correct but identified 11 claims in the documentary that were incorrect or not supported by the evidence. Hardly a rebuke (in fact I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find any major documentary that doesn't make an error or a leap of logic at some point).

[Coder]

My 5 cents (Euro-cents that is).. As compared to people on this board I'd most likely land on the left end of the liberal side, and from the replies in this thread it does seem as if liberals are defending the Norwegian* Nobel Committee's choice.

However, I do NOT think that this deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. I'm one of those who believe in the theory of global warming, thus I applaude Gore's attempts at bringing the issue to light, but I don't think this falls into the Peace Prize section at all.

But then again, I shouldn't be surprised. The Peace Prize Committe have a history of making some really odd choices, making the "Peace"-part a complete joke. I mean, come on.. Henry Kissinger in '73? De Klerk in South Africa? Yassir Arafat and Yitzak Rabin?

What did these guys do for peace? They were all part of a problem, not a solution.

Gah.. just remove the peace prize.. those norwegians can't do anyting right..


* While the Nobel Prize is a Swedish award, the Peace Prize is actually given by the Norwegian Nobel Committee as opposed to all other (Chemistry, Physics, Economics etc) prizes.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The Peace Prize for fighting global warming? Are they insane?

I won't get into the global warming debate, but that connection to scarce resources causing wars and global warming leading to scarce resources is pretty darn tenuous.

Apparently the Nobel Prize folks are trying to make themselves irrelevant.

Actually, its people like you who are fast becoming irrelevant. I don't think Gore should have won the prize, but the idea that resources will not and have not played a major part in wars is beyond absurd. Water alone will be a major factor in the wars to come.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Can I get a clarification here?

Which of the following connections are you saying is tenuous:

The one that says "his fight for global warming has advanced world peace". If you jump through enough hoops, you can connect any two things.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

The benefit of having a deep understanding of the interconnectedness of events is that it becomes relatively clear how non-tangental many things are to peace. If climate conditions are such that droughts make it impossible for countries to feed their people, disease and war tend to follow. What Gore and the IPCC's work has done is bring attention to the fact that there is nothing else that can affect more people worldwide than negative climate change. Because of the actions of men like Gore, history will at least give us credit for confronting the issue -- one of the few things we as a country are trying to get right in this new century.

You realize you're arguing with people who think the CEI is credible? I used to call myself an anti-environmentalist (quite enjoyed Lomborg's book) - until the evidence got to the point where it was absurd to deny it.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Actually, its people like you who are fast becoming irrelevant. I don't think Gore should have won the prize, but the idea that resources will not and have not played a major part in wars is beyond absurd. Water alone will be a major factor in the wars to come.

It's the combined connection. This looks like someone said "Let's give Gore a Peace Prize. Now, what can we use to justify it?". Way to focus on just one link in the chain, though. Flere had a much better request for clarification on it.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Water alone will be a major factor in the wars to come.

Evian = Big Water

[AZSpeechCoach]

It's been more of a "humanitarian" prize for decades anyway. The definition of "peace" has been broadened to include "contributions to the well being of humanity" (not a direct quote, just my paraphrase). Probably due to a lack of people trying to engineer peace in an increasingly war-torn and contentious world.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The one that says "his fight for global warming has advanced world peace". If you jump through enough hoops, you can connect any two things.

Have you been playing Portal today?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Have you been playing Portal today?

No, haven't bought the orange box yet. Heck, I got Medieval II for my birthday and haven't touched it yet thanks to WOOF website stuff and Maddenator (and my NCAA 08 CL career...)

[bulletsponge]

and here i was thinking the massive global economic expansion and growing population was the reason rescourses were becoming more scarce

[Warhammer]

Actually, there will never be a water shortage if those in power decide to tap the source for it. We have desalinization plants. There are many of these working in the world today. If water gets scarce, we build more of them. If there is an issue with access to the water for these plants, we can build pipelines for it just as we do with oil currently. The whole scarce water issue is something that has been taken up by the fearmonger crowd to have something else to talk about.

If you are looking at agriculture, most well water that we take out of the ground can be used. There is very little, if any well water that is unfit for agricultural use, even though it might not be fit for our consumption.

Heck, even climate change is not something that we need to be afraid of. Most historical times of plenty came during warm cycles of the global climate. I think there is more of an issue of people scared of change than anything else. Are we trying to keep the world's climate from ever changing? How do we know when we go to far and actually affect it, by trying to not affect it?

[bulletsponge]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Heck, even climate change is not something that we need to be afraid of. Most historical times of plenty came during warm cycles of the global climate. I think there is more of an issue of people scared of change than anything else. Are we trying to keep the world's climate from ever changing? How do we know when we go to far and actually affect it, by trying to not affect it?

uhh-ohh youve said too much, dont get all logical like with the green nazis

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

uhh-ohh youve said too much, dont get all logical like with the green nazis

Damn.

Right, I mentioned the war once, but I think I got away with it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

uhh-ohh youve said too much, dont get all logical like with the green nazis

Was that really necessary? Be honest.

[bulletsponge]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Was that really necessary? Be honest.

no, an exageration

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

no, an exageration

So what, I'm somewhat of a nazi, but not an actual nazi, per se?

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Actually, its people like you who are fast becoming irrelevant. I don't think Gore should have won the prize, but the idea that resources will not and have not played a major part in wars is beyond absurd. Water alone will be a major factor in the wars to come.

Good call. We can only hope that this thread is not any indication of the prevalent thinking in this country on global warming now. There are a lot of stubborn people who made jokes and mnay still are at the expense of those who were pointing out that are climate is getting fucked up and it is our faults to great extent.

People will let their bipartisanism go against common sense thinking just because it's Gore.

As No Myths stated earlier that at least our generation will have annotated in a small foot note on this period of history that probably the most significant thing we did in this era as a civilization for the future of humankind was to at least notice there is aproblem that needs to be addressed. I really embarrassed to think at waht are grandkids and great grand kids are going to think of us in the future. And for the those who have said among other things "why should I care what happens to people in 100 or 500 years" you sir are a fucking asshole!

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Good call. We can only hope that this thread is not any indication of the prevalent thinking in this country on global warming now.

This is getting downright ridiculous. Let me take my post (which the post you quoted was replying to) step-by-step:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The Peace Prize for fighting global warming? Are they insane?

Here I'm saying "Why attach the Peace Prize to work done on global warming? What do these things have in common?" Nowhere do I comment on global warming pro or con, I simply question why the connection. And had he been given some other more relevant award, I would not have said anything. This just smacked of politics and "Al Gore needs an award. Which one can we give him?" rather than "Who is most deserving of the Peace Prize?".

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I won't get into the global warming debate,

Here's where I try real hard to say "This is not a commentary on global warming itself, I really want to concentrate on why this particular award for this particular thing.". Apparently I wasn't very clear to you, but given that at no point in my post did I say anything like "Global warming is a myth" I'm not sure where these responses are coming from other than a knee-jerk "Greg mentioned global warming again, let's shout him down!"

Originally Posted by gstelmack

but that connection to scarce resources causing wars and global warming leading to scarce resources is pretty darn tenuous.

Again, I'm focusing on the connection. Nowhere did I have any comment on global warming aside from rejecting the claim that fighting global warming will somehow reduce wars. As others pointed out in this thread, there are many factors aside from global warming that affect resources, and it just seems like jumping through hoops a bit to make a connection here that is tenuous at best.

I think AZSpeedCoach made an excellent point that it's real the Nobel Prize for Humanitarianism rather than Peace, and this award does fit that mold better. I can understand that line of reasoning better than the one mentioned in the original post.

flere's a good example of what I'd consider a reasonable response to my post, asking what part of the connection I had a problem with. If my answer to that hasn't been clear, it's just that while individually the pieces sound reasonable, it's putting them together and ignoring all the other factors that make me find it tenuous at best. But at least he read what I actually wrote and wanted to talk further about it.

[Ironhead]

Global warming is just the cover story for why they gave him the Nobel Peace prize. The real reason is that he finally caught Manbearpig.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Coder

My 5 cents (Euro-cents that is).. As compared to people on this board I'd most likely land on the left end of the liberal side, and from the replies in this thread it does seem as if liberals are defending the Norwegian* Nobel Committee's choice.

However, I do NOT think that this deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. I'm one of those who believe in the theory of global warming, thus I applaude Gore's attempts at bringing the issue to light, but I don't think this falls into the Peace Prize section at all.

But then again, I shouldn't be surprised. The Peace Prize Committe have a history of making some really odd choices, making the "Peace"-part a complete joke. I mean, come on.. Henry Kissinger in '73? De Klerk in South Africa? Yassir Arafat and Yitzak Rabin?

What did these guys do for peace? They were all part of a problem, not a solution.

Gah.. just remove the peace prize.. those norwegians can't do anyting right..


* While the Nobel Prize is a Swedish award, the Peace Prize is actually given by the Norwegian Nobel Committee as opposed to all other (Chemistry, Physics, Economics etc) prizes.

Scandanavian Fight!

SI

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Galaril

As No Myths stated earlier that at least our generation will have annotated in a small foot note on this period of history that probably the most significant thing we did in this era as a civilization for the future of humankind was to at least notice there is aproblem that needs to be addressed.

Are you insane? The most significant thing done in the last generation for the future of humankind is noticing that climate change is occurring and maybe doing something about it? None of the massive technological or medical advances will be more important? Genetically modifying foods so the earth can support billions more people isn't above it?

Look, I'm always portrayed as being on the anti-globla warming side of these debates. Not because I don't believe climate change is occuring, but because I believe it has been going on and will continue occuring regardless of our input, and that the costs associated with trying to keep environmental stasis aren't worth it.

I agree with a modified version of the African consensus that came up at the last conference on global warming. These famines, plagues and resource wars (look at Egypt and its involvement supporting rebel groups in upstream Nile countries for another example) that are projected due to global warming are already happening now without global warming. Instead of concentrating on keeping the status quo in perpetuity, we should be concentrating on improving the lives of the billion+ who live in poverty. The status quo isn't the optimum one, IMO, and I don't see why environmentalists are so hellbent on preserving it.

I also agree with Ironhead that Al Gore can't afford to let this award distract him from warning us about ManBearPig.

[dime]

I have a feeling this award will be just as good a punch-line as the one Jimmy Carter won for working with N Korea on not developing a nuclear weapon program. Hilarious!

[Flasch186]

{shocked that the responses have fallen along party lines}

I hope he's wrong about global warming however 99% of evidence shows a global warming trend that MUST have consequences no matter what they are. Cause - effect.

We either act in a way that's preventative, we dont and he's right and we're screwed, we don't and he's wrong and things are ok....so far most of the unspun (remember the admin's non-scientist guy that edited the environmental report making things blurrier - love the fact he went to work for big oil upon leaving the White House) evidence shows an alarming trend.

He deserved the award regardless, due to his work on the subject. Whether or not he's right or wrong will be what smacks us in the head 25 years from now.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Are you insane? The most significant thing done in the last generation for the future of humankind is noticing that climate change is occurring and maybe doing something about it? None of the massive technological or medical advances will be more important? Genetically modifying foods so the earth can support billions more people isn't above it?

Look, I'm always portrayed as being on the anti-globla warming side of these debates. Not because I don't believe climate change is occuring, but because I believe it has been going on and will continue occuring regardless of our input, and that the costs associated with trying to keep environmental stasis aren't worth it.

I agree with a modified version of the African consensus that came up at the last conference on global warming. These famines, plagues and resource wars (look at Egypt and its involvement supporting rebel groups in upstream Nile countries for another example) that are projected due to global warming are already happening now without global warming. Instead of concentrating on keeping the status quo in perpetuity, we should be concentrating on improving the lives of the billion+ who live in poverty. The status quo isn't the optimum one, IMO, and I don't see why environmentalists are so hellbent on preserving it.

I also agree with Ironhead that Al Gore can't afford to let this award distract him from warning us about ManBearPig.

Yeah, after I wrote that went back and read it again I would agree that was a stretch on my part. There are many great things we have done as far as medical and technological. Still I don't won't my kids looking at me and teaching their kids that the reason the Polar bear is extinct becuz Grandpa had to have the Hummer (truck)

[clintl]

If it were up to me, I would not given a Nobel Peace Prize for work on global warming at this point in history. However, I don't think it's an outlandish thing to do, and Gore is deserving of recognition for the work he has done on it.

And yes, Bono deserves a Nobel more than Gore does. That said, I also think Gore has been the recipient of more undeserved (often irrational or completely fabricated) criticism than any other politician of our era.

[Raiders Army]

And this was brought up before:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...re-solar_N.htm

BELLE MEADE, Tenn. (AP) — Zoning rules in Al Gore's upscale neighborhood kept the former vice president and environmental activist from installing solar panels on his roof.
Gore bought his multimillion dollar home in 2002 in Belle Meade, an exclusive city encircled by metropolitan Nashville, and he has been ramping up an ambitious renovation ever since. But his contractors ran into a legal barrier last summer when they sought to apply for a permit to install solar panels on the roof.

Terry Franklin, Belle Meade's building officer, said the town only allows power generating equipment to be placed on the ground level. "Solar panels are generators," Franklin said.

"We told them they couldn't do it," he said. "They wanted to try anyway, but we convinced them it was something the board wouldn't allow."

Gore was criticized last month by a conservative group that claims his mansion uses too much electricity. That group disputes the findings of most scientists that global warming is a serious problem.

Belle Meade, the nation's fifth-richest town according to the 2000 Census, developed the zoning rules because many of its homes have backup electric generators.

There are many tall trees in the city, and the residents have discouraged Nashville Electric Service crews from pruning trees near power lines. Power outages from falling branches led several residents to back up their power supply with personal generators.

Gore's contractors had argued that silent solar panels should not be equated with noisy gas or diesel powered generators, but they ultimately agreed not to press the issue while the city considered changes to the code.

New rules going into effect on April 1 will allow homeowners to install solar panels on their roofs. But there's a caveat: "Solar panels may be installed upon the roof of a building so long as they are not visible from the street or from any adjoining property," according to the ordinance.

Gore's roof does have flat areas where the panels could be placed, Franklin said.

The builders at Gore's home plan to make the application for solar panels once the new ordinance goes into effect.

"We just sort of had to wait until they caught up with things," said Steve Rick, Gore's architect. "I didn't think it was worth fighting because we knew the change was coming."

Utility records show the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year at the 10,000-square-foot home. The Gores used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006 — far more than the typical Nashville household, which uses about 15,600 kilowatt-hours per year.

It was unclear how much difference solar panels would make in Gore's power bill.

Gore already purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100% of his electricity costs.

Gore, who starred in the documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" about global warming, has said repeatedly he has no plans to join the field of 2008 Democratic presidential aspirants.

But Gore's unwillingness to rule out a run completely has given some activists hope that he might change his mind.

This whole thing is akin to Britney Spears getting a Pepsi Lifetime achievement award after she refused to drink Pepsi.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

{shocked that the responses have fallen along party lines}

I believe that humans are at least partially responsible for global climate change. Just throwing that out there since I'm one of the most libertarian/pro-business/anti-government forum member on this board.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

{shocked that the responses have fallen along party lines}

UN - Kyoto Treaty or the Earth burns!

United States (Clinton) - No thanks, looks like a deal that just fucks America.

Hollywood/Liberals - *crickets*

...a couple years later...

United States (Bush) - No thanks, that deal still fucks America.

Hollywood/Liberals - "Save the World from President Bush!"

And Gore's movie lands him a peace medal...

A peace medal? For what? Making a movie about Global Warming? He was vice-president of the United States of America and we did not sign Kyoto.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

UN - Kyoto Treaty or the Earth burns!

United States (Clinton) - No thanks, looks like a deal that just fucks America.

Hollywood/Liberals - *crickets*

...a couple years later...

United States (Bush) - No thanks, that deal still fucks America.

Hollywood/Liberals - "Save the World from President Bush!"

And Gore's movie lands him a peace medal...

A peace medal? For what? Making a movie about Global Warming? He was vice-president of the United States of America and we did not sign Kyoto.

Wrong. Plain wrong. I'm no Gore fan, but this is just factually incorrect.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Wrong. Plain wrong. I'm no Gore fan, but this is just factually incorrect.

Gore wasn't vice-president? Clinton didn't think Kyoto was a bad deal for America? Bush didn't think Kyoto was a bad deal for America?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Gore wasn't vice-president? Clinton didn't think Kyoto was a bad deal for America? Bush didn't think Kyoto was a bad deal for America?

Do you ever do your own fact checks?

You said: "He was vice-president of the United States of America and we did not sign Kyoto."

That is incorrect. The U.S. signed (and Gore was the one who actually signed it) the Kyoto Protocol in 1998. The treaty has never since been ratified (which needs to be done by the Senate, not the President).

The Clinton administration can be criticized (if you are pro-Kyoto Protocol) for not pushing for ratification in the US Senate. Clinton did not do so for 2 major reasons. First, he was dealing with a GOP congress which had no interest in ratification (they had passed resolutions against Kyoto in case there was any doubt). Second, Clinton and Gore argued against ratification until other developing countries jumped on board. That position was that the Kyoto framework was generally good, but was a bad idea for the U.S. unless key developing countries joined in. That position is very different than the Bush administration's view that the Kyoto framework itself is against U.S. interests.

I'm no defender of Clinton or Gore, but I am a fan of truth (and hence not a fan of most of your political posts).