Sez the AP:

Quote :

"OSLO, Norway (AP) -- Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and lay the foundations for counteracting it."

What's so peaceful about climate change?

10/12/2007 6:38:14 AM

Their claim was that the climate change/global warming situation could lead to future wars over resources. It's quite the stretch IMO. Seems like it belongs with the sciences.

I heard some people gunning for the Myanmar monks. They seem like a better candidate.

On one hand you have a rich guy that's probably actively trying to pursue a Nobel prize and on the other you have people that are actually sacrificing their lives and well being for their cause. Seems kind of shallow and political to award it to the guy that comes across as half trying to promote his cause and half trying to promote his own name.

10/12/2007 7:19:54 AM

Quote :

"On one hand you have a rich guy that's probably actively trying to pursue a Nobel prize and on the other you have people that are actually sacrificing their lives and well being for their cause. Seems kind of shallow and political to award it to the guy that comes across as half trying to promote his cause and half trying to promote his own name."

10/12/2007 7:50:26 AM

Uh, sorry to piss on your Gore hating parade BUT


What the monks want is freedom, not some shitty medal that they couldn't leave the country to get and money the government would confiscate anyways.

Maybe when their country is free from their oppressive government they'll give a fuck about a medal.

10/12/2007 7:58:36 AM

Quote :

"What the monks want is freedom, not some shitty medal"

That was kinda the point of jbtilley's comment.

10/12/2007 8:00:20 AM

No, he was saying the monks, who are part of an ongoing conflict, should receive a medal and not Gore because he has corporate/political interests and doesn't need money.

I think he forget that a large percentage of peace price winners fit the exact same category but it does not exclude them from working for the overall good.

10/12/2007 8:03:05 AM

No, part of what I was saying is that the medal should go to people that deserve it, not people that are just out to win an award.

Sorry, I wasn't really trying to Gore bash here. Give him the Nobel Climatology Prize for all I care.

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 8:15 AM. Reason : -]

10/12/2007 8:13:10 AM

But he's not a climatologist. He's a politician trying to push this agenda (for whatever his own personal reasons) which is for the betterment (or prolonged existence) of humanity. Now, prolonged existence of humanity probably means more war, but that's a whole other argument. I think people trying to 'better' humanity fall under the scope of the peace prize though they may not be fighting for peace explicitly.

10/12/2007 8:22:37 AM

You could also argue that he has created more conflict, seeing how the whole global warming topic has divided people into two opposing camps

10/12/2007 8:27:14 AM

Intellectual conflict is pretty mild and good (in most cases) and I'm pretty sure you realize that.


However partisan idiocy and corporate lobbying doesn't really count much in my book.

10/12/2007 8:30:44 AM

Quote :

"Seems like it belongs with the sciences."

The activism that Gore does belongs under the Peace Prize. The Peace Prize is always not necessarily directly about "peace", but things that are generally supposed to make life/society/the world a better place.

The actual science of global warming, like scientists who discover ways to test the atmosphere or breakthroughs to stop it or something belong under the science awards.

10/12/2007 8:43:54 AM

Ok, point taken. Too bad there isn't a Nobel Prize for attention seeking

10/12/2007 8:45:43 AM

yeah, i don't think he deserved a nobel at all, in any category....

10/12/2007 8:52:02 AM

^^^ Sooooo, make a lot of noise about a social touchstone and we'll give you a medal whether your agitation is remotely accurate or not?

I think, again, that jbtilley's point is that the medal is as fraudulent as Gore's "science." So either the award has been misappropriated, or it doesn't matter in the first place.

10/12/2007 9:09:44 AM

Why for peace?

10/12/2007 9:34:49 AM

only nobel without a really defined parameter

10/12/2007 9:35:24 AM

did they give somebody a Nobel prize in the 70s for spreading awareness about global cooling?

10/12/2007 9:45:09 AM

Quote :

"Seems like it belongs with the sciences anyone the Norwegian Nobel Committee damn pleases."

There I fixed that for you.

10/12/2007 9:50:40 AM

Quote :

"Give him the Nobel Climatology Prize for all I care."

I lol'ed

10/12/2007 11:17:26 AM

I don't think that fearmongering should be awarded with a Nobel Prize.

If so, you might as well give Bush the Nobel lifetime achievement award.

Also in the news (interesting timing):

http://www.kansascity.com/news/world/story/313405.html

Quote :

"But a High Court judge in Britain has criticized former Vice President Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” as being both “alarmist” and “exaggerated.” In a written judgment Wednesday, Justice Michael Burton said the film was riddled with nine scientific errors as he considered whether it should be shown to British school children. For example: he said Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream would one day stop warming up the Atlantic Ocean, thus plunging Europe into an ice age, runs foul of the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen. While the judge declined to ban the film, he ordered that it could be shown in schools only with guidance notes to counter the film’s “one-sided” viewpoint."

10/12/2007 11:45:58 AM

Fucking hell.

10/12/2007 1:50:49 PM

QUICK, SOMEONE NAME THE WINNER FROM LAST YEAR


riiiiight, no one gave a fuck. so why do you now?

this is definitely something everyone should be up in arms about. Totally worthwhile

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2007 4:20:19 PM

Really, Gore should get a medal for peddling his retirement plan. makes sense.

10/12/2007 4:27:03 PM

so much hatred of a dude who wrote a movie about protecting the earth (and GASP turned a dollar or two)

quite sad

10/12/2007 4:29:04 PM

if only it were that simple

10/12/2007 4:30:50 PM

yeah. he made a movie to peddle his RETIREMENT PLAN.

10/12/2007 4:31:20 PM

http://www.apple.com/

hahaha

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he used PowerPoint, not Keynote, correct?

10/12/2007 4:32:17 PM

^^good for him. why do you hate capitalism?

why do you hate america?

10/12/2007 4:33:30 PM

I've got nothing against capitalism. I DO, however, have something against claiming there is a problem and that the problem required gov't intervention, when in reality you are just peddling your retirement plan.

10/12/2007 4:36:49 PM

I DISAGREE

i dont think he was being disingenuous and just trying to peddle his retirement plan. i believe his intentions are good.

oh shit, now what do we dooo man?!?

10/12/2007 4:39:13 PM

well, we label you a fool for not recognizing the con for what it is, that's what we do

10/12/2007 4:40:18 PM

the point is, it's stupid to argue about what we believe his ultimate intentions are.

he presented the information, so focus on the information. not his motives. obviously, nothing is going to convince the people who dislike gore that his intentions are good. so what's the point?

[Edited on October 12, 2007 at 4:46 PM. Reason : .]

10/12/2007 4:41:32 PM

well, we did focus on the information. and we found it to be utter bullshit. thus, we can reasonably conclude that he is just spewing alarmist bullshit in an attempt to peddle his retirement plan. so clearly, the man deserves a medal.

10/12/2007 4:48:47 PM

Quote :

"we did focus on the information. and we found it to be utter bullshit"

YOU DID?

OH SHIT MAN. YOU SHOULD LET SOMEONE KNOW

10/12/2007 4:51:54 PM

wait wait, we are wrong.

The Nobel should have gone to....

General Petraeus

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/10/11/general_petraeus_deserves_the_nobel_peace_prize.php

I mean duh guys.

10/12/2007 4:52:04 PM

i guess, jwb, you prefer to stick your head in the sand and get assraped by Al Gore, all in the name of Gaia, right?

I have a feeling that you will one day end up in your manager's office, stark naked, with a broomstick up your ass, fellating your manager's fiance.

10/12/2007 4:57:03 PM

i'd rather not guess as to how you came up with something so latently homo erotic.

YIKES.

btw, just because i disagree with YOU, doesn't mean i wholeheartedly agree with Al Gore. you'd like it to be that cut and dry, but it's not. YOU'RE KILLING AMERICA with that kind of thinking

10/12/2007 5:02:22 PM

America is already dead. hate to break it to you.

10/12/2007 5:05:40 PM

you and your ILK killed it

10/12/2007 5:06:55 PM

Quote :

"he presented the information, so focus on the information. "

I haven't seen the movie, only maybe 15 minutes of it, but from what I saw, it's not something I would look to for real depth.

Really, science can't be politicized without bad results, and Gore, as a non-scientist, is doing exactly that.

I understand though why he was given the nod for bringing climate issues to the forefront, along with the IPCC, but the Nobel committee should have realized that people aren't going to be able to separate his mediocre movie, from real awareness and knowledge of climate change. This is going to cause a lot of people on the right (because they hate Gore), from being able to take an honest look at climate science.

I would think there HAS to be someone better to give the freaking Nobel peace prize, that people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr have won. For their sake, i'm ashamed Gore got the prize.

10/12/2007 5:07:06 PM

^^ actually, it is my ilk that would help it out immensely.

^ it's too bad there is no such thing as climate science

10/12/2007 5:10:15 PM

^^i can definitely agree with all of that

10/12/2007 5:24:48 PM

congrats al gore

10/12/2007 5:33:52 PM

I am quite sad and disappointed that the Nobel Peace Prize didn't go to Bush and his cabinet for bringing freedom and democracy to the Afghan and Iraqi people.

10/12/2007 8:02:37 PM

Quote :

"In a written judgment Wednesday, Justice Michael Burton said the film was riddled with nine scientific errors as he considered whether it should be shown to British school children."

I'm assuming the High Court judge is an expert.

10/12/2007 10:59:37 PM

^ i'm assuming they had expert witnesses that explained the inaccuracies to him

10/12/2007 11:40:12 PM

Quote :

"Their claim was that the climate change/global warming situation could lead to future wars over resources. It's quite the stretch IMO. Seems like it belongs with the sciences."

You obviously don't know enough about how the world works to comment. Just say you don't know.

10/12/2007 11:44:43 PM

Regarding the British court case on showing An Inconvenient Truth in schools, the media is grossly misrepresenting the judgment. The judge said the following:

Quote :

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate. Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand. In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott. "

Commentary from scienceblogs.com:

Quote :

"If you noticed the quotation marks around 'error' then you are more observant than all of the journalists I listed above. Burton is not saying that there are errors, he is just referring to the things that Downes alleged were errors. Burton puts quote marks around 'error' 17 more times in his judgement. Notice also the emphasised part -- Burton is not even trying to decide whether they are errors or not. This too seems to have escaped the journalists' attention. (And yes, that was Bob Carter mentioned there.) So what is Burton assessing in his judgement? Well, s407 says that where political issues are involved there should be "a balanced presentation of opposing views" so Burton states that the government should make it clear when "there is a view to the contrary, i.e. (at least) the mainstream view". Burton calls these "errors or departures from the mainstream". So contrary to all the reporters' claims Burton did not find that there were 9 scientific errors in AIT, but that there were nine points that might be errors or where differing views should be presented for balance."

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php

The post then goes on to address the specific points in the court case. Interesting read.


(For the record, I think giving Gore the Nobel Prize hurts the image of both the Nobel committee and Al Gore.)

[Edited on October 13, 2007 at 12:17 AM. Reason : ]

10/12/2007 11:59:32 PM

For fuck's sake, why don't they just give Gore a Tony Award to round things out? Who is he, freaking Rita Moreno? This is worse than when they gave it to Henry Kissinger.

10/13/2007 12:11:10 AM

who won it last year?

seriously?? why does anyone give a fuck. WHO CARES. go about your lives

10/13/2007 12:21:50 AM