Originally Posted by Ductor Remigium

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.

Originally Posted by Americano

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

Originally Posted by MattLarson

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

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Your post is also one of the reasons that Al Gore should not have been chosen. He will just become the media focus of cheap partisan attack, and distract from the actual issue he is associated with.

Someone less open to cheap politics would have been a far wiser choice.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Gore thinks that the western industrial economically developed lifestyle is compatible with a healthy earth. That is just boneheaded stupidity. Its not so much his hypocrisy that bothers me as it is his vision.

Andrew

Originally Posted by MattLarson

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

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Gore thinks that the western industrial economically developed lifestyle is compatible with a healthy earth. That is just boneheaded stupidity.

Originally Posted by kramer

I don't think he believes this for a second. If he did and admitted it, he'd be done politically.

Originally Posted by solletica

It is if your energy consumption is all from non-polluting sources.

Nuclear energy is also considered a clean source (w/the exception of the waste disposal process).

Originally Posted by Curly

OTOH, wouldn't choosing someone else based solely or primarily because Gore was sure to be attacked by the rabid right ... isn't that giving way too much credence to the "shoot the messenger" crowd? I don't agree with the argument that Gore was a poor choice because he's being attacked - if he is a lightning rod for the right, don't the attacks also keep global warming in the news?

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

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)?

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

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

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Gore thinks that the western industrial economically developed lifestyle is compatible with a healthy earth. That is just boneheaded stupidity.

Originally Posted by Michael

There once was a time when man couldnt fly or when man couldnt see into the night. Time's change and new innovations surface and become a part of everyday life.

Saying "We cant do it now, so we should never develop the ability" is absurd, shortsighted and moronic.

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

There will be immense humanitarian fall out from global warming. Imagine the crisis when the population-dense river basins, such as the one in Bangladesh, are submurged. With massive migrations comes violence, be it economically, religiously, racially, culturally motivated, or simply motivated from opportunism.

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


Yeah, some people think that massive humanitarian crises are bad. Stupid politics.

Originally Posted by usmc7011

I think your reaching