Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

  • Thread starter Joey D
  • 38 comments
  • 1,750 views
Status
Not open for further replies.

Joey D

Premium
47,203
United States
Boyne Falls, MI
GTP_Joey
GTP Joey
Well looks like Mr. Gore will be getting a Peace Prize.

From CNN:

CNN
Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their work to raise awareness about global warming.

In a statement, Gore said he was "deeply honored," adding that "the climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

The former vice president said he would donate his half of the $1.5 million prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a U.S. organization he founded that aims to persuade people to cut emissions and reduce global warming.

The White House offered an initial reaction to the Nobel win by President Bush's 2000 opponent. "Of course, we're happy that Vice President Gore and the IPCC are receiving this recognition," said deputy press secretary Tony Fratto.

During its announcement, the Nobel committee cited the winners "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

The award ceremony will be held December 10 in Oslo, Norway. Video Watch why Gore won the Nobel prize »

In recent weeks, Gore has been the target of a campaign to persuade him to enter the 2008 presidential race.

A source involved in Gore's past political runs told CNN that he definitely has the ambition to use the peace prize as a springboard to run for president.

But he will not run, because he won't take on the political machine assembled by Sen. Hillary Clinton, said the source. If the senator from New York had faltered at all, Gore would take a serious look at entering the race, the source said. But Gore has calculated that Clinton is unstoppable, according to the source.

Gore repeatedly denied he has any plans to run again, but this week a group of grass-roots Democrats calling themselves "Draft Gore" took out a full-page ad in The New York Times in a bid to change his mind. Watch more on the movement to draft Gore Video

"Your country needs you now, as do your party, and the planet you are fighting so hard to save," the group said in an open letter.

"America and the Earth need a hero right now, someone who will transcend politics as usual and bring real hope to our country and to the world."

The Nobel committee praised Gore as being "one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians."

"He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted," said Ole Danbolt Mjoes, chairman of the Nobel committee.

In making the announcement, Mjoes said, "Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.

"Thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 to study climate change information. The group doesn't do independent research but instead reviews scientific literature from around the world.

The U.N.-sanctioned group was formed by the World Meteorological Organization and U.N. Environment Program.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "delighted" with the news that Gore and the IPCC will share in prize.

A spokeswoman for the IPCC, which draws on the work of 2,000 scientists, said the panel was surprised that it had been chosen to share the award with Gore and praised his contribution to environmental campaigning.

"We would have been happy even if he had received it alone because it is a recognition of the importance of this issue," spokeswoman Carola Traverso Saibante said, The Associated Press reported.

The Nobel caps a series of prestigious awards associated with Gore, including two Oscars this year for the 2006 documentary film, "An Inconvenient Truth," which followed him on a worldwide tour publicizing the dangers of climate change.

Last month, he also picked up an Emmy -- the highest award in U.S. television -- for "Current TV." The show, which Gore co-created, describes itself as a global television network giving viewers the opportunity to create and influence its programming.

Previous American recipients of the peace prize include former Presidents Carter in 2002, Wilson in 1919 and Theodore Roosevelt in 1906.

In 1973, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger shared the award with North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. received the honor in 1964. See more on previous Nobel winners »
advertisement

Gore was vice president for eight years under President Clinton. He won the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000 and ran against Bush.

But he failed in his bid for the White House -- despite winning more popular votes than Bush -- when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his challenge over voting results in Florida, securing an Electoral College majority for Bush

Now I guess if one were to give a "damn" about this one would have to accept Gore's theory that man is making the world warmer and not think it's just a cycle. I personally think there has to be someone more deserving of the prize in this world but what do I know?
 
Cute.

Bono almost won this. The thought alone gives me chills...
 
You mean the guy who complains about the world polluting and wasting energy while his wife drives a big-ass diesel, and he sits in his home eating up electricity faster than 4 households?

Jee, what were they thinking?
 
Also there was a thread here a few years back dealing with his power consumption at his home...lets just say it was energy friendly.
 
You mean the guy who complains about the world polluting while his wife drives a big-ass diesel?

Jee, what were they thinking?
Fact: the Nobel people are all pretty much old and senile.
 
*Famine is angry*

Let's all give millions and prestigious international awards to hypocritical, lying bandwagoneers who imagine problems on the basis of very little science to maintain control over people.

At least they didn't give him an award for any scientific field...
 
Might I ask what Global Warming has to do with peace? We aren't killing each other because the earth is getting a little warmer.

Nobel's will said the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". (ok that's what wikipedia said he said).

Honestly what Gore won makes no sense.
 
Unfortunate timing given that a judge here in UK ruled that if Gore's film is to be shown in schools, it should also come with a warning about the scientific errors it contains...

The relevance of global warming to global peace is slightly abstract, but there is no doubt that the responsible use and sharing of available resources is a fundamental issue when it comes to potential regional conflicts... that said, it is still a little weird, and I'm sure there are a few people who are feeling a little bit hard done by by this decision.

Still, as Famine points out, thankfully he didn't win a scientific prize... the Nobel Peace Prize is perhaps the most flexible of all the possible categories... but surely the Oscar for best documentary was enough!?
 
Unfortunate timing given that a judge here in UK ruled that if Gore's film is to be shown in schools, it should also come with a warning about the scientific errors it contains...

I love your country!

Anyways I see what you mean about the resources thing though, war are typically fought over resources. I mean whether you agree with it or not one of possible reasons for involvement in Iraq is due to oil.
 
*Famine is angry*

Let's all give millions and prestigious international awards to hypocritical, lying bandwagoneers who imagine problems on the basis of very little science to maintain control over people.

At least they didn't give him an award for any scientific field...

I'm jumping this bandwagon...

Twas gonna write a nasty post myself, but since Famine already did, why bother...

Bunch of **** ups altogether :-|
 
So they give these away in cracker jack boxes now? :dunce:
 
So they give these away in cracker jack boxes now? :dunce:

Agreed. Do they HAVE to give a prize to someone every time? Perhaps they couldn't find anyone to meet the peace criterion.
 
Might I ask what Global Warming has to do with peace? We aren't killing each other because the earth is getting a little warmer.
water shortage is already creating minor conflicts, for example between turkey and syria/iraq or israel and palestine because turkey and israel control major rivers...


Unfortunate timing given that a judge here in UK ruled that if Gore's film is to be shown in schools, it should also come with a warning about the scientific errors it contains...
that is one way of (mis?)interpreting the case. the original goal of the complainant was to entirely remove gore's film from the schools. however, it is still shown which means it has to be mostly credible. ;)
 
that is one way of (mis?)interpreting the case. the original goal of the complainant was to entirely remove gore's film from the schools. however, it is still shown which means it has to be mostly credible. ;)

What? Because it shown mean it has credibility? How does that mean it's automatically mostly credible?

This is not an emotional, spiritual or even personal issue. It's supposed to be based on science. And since it is about science there are only three answers: "Yes", "No" or "We don't know". So, if the movie contains scientific errors and is supposed to be expressing a scientific fact, how does that not discredit the entire production?
 
You know, one could argue that by reducing the availabilty of cheap fossil fuel energy sources you could be encouraging war as developing countries will not be able to afford more expensive fuel sources, or lack the renewable natural sources (such as powerful rivers) or ability to harness them and will thus be forced to fight even more for fossil based resources.

Anyway, I have often felt this was a more politically motivated award than the science-based awards, and this has really helped to enforce that idea in my mind. Are they really going to tell me that a guy tryingto convince us to all drive hybrids and change our lightbulbs did more for peace than anyone else on the planet?
 
When I found out Gore I thought it was a joke. Who did he beat out for the award? Does anybody know?
 
If I were a Nobel laureate (hahahaha), I’d be pretty upset right now, because the integrity of my award would have just taken a bit of a nosedive.
 
The nominees for the prize cannot be revealed until 50 years later. So, in 2057, we will know. Set your alarm clocks now.
 
You mean the guy who complains about the world polluting and wasting energy while his wife drives a big-ass diesel, and he sits in his home eating up electricity faster than 4 households?

Jee, what were they thinking?

I wonder what would have been said had George Bush won it...
 
I wonder what would have been said had George Bush won it...
Well, that could be argued back and forth about whether he was trying to create stability or make war for political gain. It would definitely be more controversial and I would think that it was just as odd.

To me the peace prize was awarded to people like Ghandi and Mother Teressa. You know, people that encourage solidarity, freedom, getting along, and I don't know, peace maybe.

Maybe I am just reading to much into the title and what it is defined as. My bad.
 
What? Because it shown mean it has credibility? How does that mean it's automatically mostly credible?

This is not an emotional, spiritual or even personal issue. It's supposed to be based on science. And since it is about science there are only three answers: "Yes", "No" or "We don't know". So, if the movie contains scientific errors and is supposed to be expressing a scientific fact, how does that not discredit the entire production?

as i said, the original aim of the plaintiff was to remove gore's film from british schools altogether. however, the judge only found 9 errors and said that the film was, quote:"broadly accurate"
 
Even if there is one error it makes the film not 100% correct.
 
Even if there is one error it makes the film not 100% correct.
so what? if would give you ten reasons to reduce emissions and one of them would be wrong, how would that make the other 9 less credible?


you guys have to keep in mind that gore only collected all the information which he got from a majority of the scientific community.
the nobel peace prize also went to the IPCC and there is no other scientific group on this planet that is more credible than the IPCC.
 
so what? if would give you ten reasons to reduce emissions and one of them would be wrong, how would that make the other 9 less credible?


you guys have to keep in mind that gore only collected all the information which he got from a majority of the scientific community.
the nobel peace prize also went to the IPCC and there is no other scientific group on this planet that is more credible than the IPCC.

Actually yes, if one is proved to be wrong I have serious doubts about how well the other data was collected.

And about all the global warming scientist...if they were to prove tomorrow that the earth is just getting warmer because of cycles and not by man they'd all be out of a job so of course they are going to constantly blame human interaction as the cause. They want to stay employed and they want grant money. So I think that's a pretty bold statement to be claiming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the most creditable source on the planet...I'd like to see who has proven this to be honest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Posts

Back