Somehow I get the feeling that many Nobel winners or nominees will/are pissed at Gore winning……
Heck Carter actually used his hands to help people, but Gore did nothing but talk and sacrificed nothing.....If he actually done something, I missed it.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Bringing attention to yourself for pretending to care about the environment earns you a Nobel Peace Prize? This is a fucked-up world.

__________________

sigh. you're right of course. I never saw the film, my daughter did and was pretty disgusted with the hype of it all - nothing in it was all that remarkable and she picked up a few inconsistencies - and the British decision indicates that this wasn't an uncommon perception.

In some ways - because of the holes it makes the issue a bigger target.

In other ways it is as you say - its all lets be scared and create a war on global warming - flying people around and having mega conferences and using resources on gab fests rather than investing it in science, renewable energy research, doing something constructive and educating people about FACTS rather than hype.

I think the response to CC - and every other bloody thing - relies on us all finding our inner airhead.

Really. I don't need my inner airhead to tell me that what we need to do is listen to self appointed 'experts' like Gore to state the bleeding obvious. I'd rather rely on being informed and common sense.

I recall years ago when I was doing Org Psych we looked at sources of Authority - and expertness was considered to be one of these. But 'expertness' in the real sense is marginalized, and shooting ones mouth off with half truths (some of which can be shot down) is far more likely to command attention.

The marketing industry promotes this, because it sells copy. And along with the copy are sales of 'environmentally friendly' plasma TV screens that - even though they gobble up 3 or 4 times the electricity as the TV set you had three years ago, consume 20% less energy than the next model. Or 'environmentally friendly' products that are 'organically grown' - but packagaed and transported in such a way that your consumptrion fotprint would be less if you chose the 'unfriendly' option in the first place.

really, its all just vomit.

and the Nobel committee seems to buy into that too.

agree 100%.

I recall when this film came out people here seemed to refer to me as some kind of Gore groupie.

The fact is those of us who have followed the issue for the last twenty five - thirty years find Gore to be a follower - possibly even a jumper on the bandwaggon.

His political history in the US is something that I have argued is detrimental to intelligent discussion of the issue ...

but having said that - I still say - at least the issue is now out there.

Have you noticed how the die hard deniers are less present than they used to be?

Or, put another way - someone with more legitimate credentials on climate change who isn't actively hypocritical on the subject would have been a better choice.

Like it or not, the criticism of Gore on his "do as I say, not as I do" approach is completely legitimate.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Were you aware of Global Warming before Gore hopped on the bandwagon? Of course you were.

Have you ever met someone who first learned of climate change because of Al Gore?

I'll bet not.

There are some folks out there doing real, meaningful work in environmental science. Why not recognize one or more of them for the actual work being done, instead of recognizing Gore for the show?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

In accordance with this request, the posts that leaked over here from the aforementioned thread have been moved to that thread.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

So... not to be a complete dick, but...

There will be immense humanitarian fall out from overpopulation of the globe. Imagine the crisis when more people are competing for less food. With limited staple resources comes violence, be it economically, religiously, racially, culturally motivated, or simply motivated opportunism.

If someone could create a silver bullet to stop overpopulation he would be saving thousands, if not millions of lives. In lieu of that, I think that this award is justified.

So, when do Hitler and Satlin get posthumous nominations?

*Note - I am, in no way, trying to equate Gore with either historical monster. I'm just pointing out a possible weakness in your argument

Also, I'd like to note that I'd thought of this idea - staving off global warming might save thousands, if not millions of lives. But thousands, if not millions of people are dying horrible deaths anyway, in Africa and Asia. Might it not make more sense to stem the tide of unfathomable death before we start having humanitarian goals for the world at large? To wit, if we can't stop millions from being slaughtered in Africa, each year, is global warming really important, from a humanitarian standpoint (considerations of the future aside)?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Totally!

When I was a kid, you had to walk forty miles to school, uphill, both ways, even to hear who had won the peace prize. And, when you heard who had won, they would brand you with a three foot tall "peace" image, just because they could. But, these days, I hear you can get it just for brokering peace. For shame, I tells ya! I miss the ol' days!

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

As I am sure you know, I was arguing with GW deniers on USPO for about two years befre the movie came out.

no - but you have to remember I live in Australia where cc is a reality thats been affecting us for years.

Although I must say that AG's film appears to have put it more on the agenda of mainstream US media, based on what has been reported here.

you and I are in complete agreement here - however I also think that awarding the prize to the IPCC (who DO do the work) wouldn't put it out there and make people think about it as much as the prize being shared by AG.

Which reflects the sad state of affairs that celebrity is more important than science when it comes to this debate (and many others).

To be perfectly honest I think anyone who really needed AG to make them aware of CC has had their head up their bum for the last 15 years.

Apart from that CC IS a major issue. Its a greater threat to our future than terrorism - and may indeed spawn terrorism.

While I fully agree with this - the issue is not separate from GW - and with the people who will be most vulnerable to food scarcity NOT being the ones who are major contributors to GW - we who DO contribute to what is happening have a responsibility to look at what is happening.

In addition - we should be aware that modern farming methods (eg the 'green revolution' of the sixties) actually led to lower total food output per acre for domestic markets, and higher commercial production utilising high energy consumption machinery, soil depleting fertilizers, high rates of debt and displacement of rural populations. The 'green revolution' led to mass migration to cities and was not a lot different from the enclosure movement of earlier cenuries in Europe in its impact - both socially and economically.

there is a silver bullet.

Its called the education of women.

again - this takes honest evaluation of what the issues are - and to be perfectly honest Good Doctor - the west doesn't really want to know. It involves trade, subsidies to OUR producers, awareness that much of what we enjoy is dependent on slave or indentured labour, interest groups (including those pushed by western multinationals) interested in resource rich impoverished nations.

We can bellyache all we like about how rotten it is in Darfur (The Congo doesn't rate a mention - although next time you use your cell phone, ipod, laptop - even now as you read what I'm writing here - you might think about the impact of tanatlum on Congolese wars, the working conditions of indentured congolese working on the mines that enable you to have these accessories, and the Gorillas and other endangered species killed because the underpaid workers subsist largely on 'bush meat'), but how many of us really think about why thats happening?

yes. Already droughts across Africa - Niger, Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan are symptoms of GW that were predicted over a decade ago. The deaths from these droughts, and the conflicts that are exacerbated by water and food scarcity - are part of what is responsible for many of these deaths.

South & East Asia - increased flooding, typhoons etc - hundreds dead, disease outbreaks, millions of displaced people and agricultural land destroyed for this season - already - the impact of Global warming.

Pacific Islanders finding coral reef ecosystems - their primary protein sources - AND dollar sources from tourism - destroyed (and having met a people from this region studying these very issues I can tell you its not pie in the sky 'whatif' scenarios)

kelp forests in the southern ocean dying - their vulnerability to even small increases in water temperature destroys food and cover for a whole range of species ...

the list goes on ...

But you are right - its not the only thing we should address.

The arms trade is important - both the legal and the illicit trade.
A proper review of aid and international funding arrangements so that infrastructure which BUILDS capacity (education, hospitals, transport networks) are given priority, rather than a governments ability to pay off debt to first world funding institutions

LOL.

I could go on.

Yes good doctor - the issue is BIGGER than GW - but GW is also part of it. Ansd awareness of how WE impact on those whose mistake was being born in the wrong part of the world is a step in the right direction - whether its GW or thinking about the real social costs of the next ipod or candy bar we buy.

There must be some irony in that comment.. but that "peace image" went way past my english skills. I still walk 3 miles to university. Some people have even won the peace price for fighting a war for years, so maybe they are shooting dice there in Norway for who wins the peace price.

Not to be bitter or anything.. but ex-Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari has brokered more than one peace settlements but he hasn't gotten any recognition.

__________________
I duck, therefore i cover.

I don't hear of the US military buying any energy credits for the use of Air Force 1 and 2.

From what I've read of the changes in Nobel recognition, raising public awareness of potentially acute circumstances that affect humanity is now considered to be far more important than what's produced by those in the trenches. Can you think of any other American or other international personality who has done more to publicize looming environmental dangers than Gore? Certainly none of the standing US politicians have voiced any concerns other than stating the US will not officially be a part of any attempts to protect the environment and that's a direct link to potential government funding for university environmental research.

and some people think anyone who hates bush is a person worthy of an award