Al Gore

[dkerfoot]

To top it off, he is now featured in a wax museum too!

Oh wait. That is actually him. Never mind.

[jstevens]

The real problem I have with the global warming theory is that rational scientic research has been replaced with new age fanatics who jump on anybody who should dare to question their precieved wisdom.

Well, let’s not even look at the non-scientists who are involved with the "global warming campaign," and focus on the scientists and science behind the idea that human-caused global warming will have catastrophic consequences.

First, there’s substantial reason to believe that one of the most prominent scientists advancing this view is politically biased:

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+...rticle9061.htm

Second, there’s substantial reason to believe that the measurements and theories used by this scientist have been changed to make the data appear to support his conclusion:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2077

I apologize for these political comments, but this thread is intrinsically political--no post in a thread about the Nobel Peace Prize can be devoid of political content, because the prize is always awarded for political actions. I hope that by restricting my comments to facts rather than opinion that I've minimized any offense that might be taken.

Regards,

John

[jziegler]

Well, let’s not even look at the non-scientists who are involved with the "global warming campaign," and focus on the scientists and science behind the idea that human-caused global warming will have catastrophic consequences.

First, there’s substantial reason to believe that one of the most prominent scientists advancing this view is politically biased:

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+...rticle9061.htm

Second, there’s substantial reason to believe that the measurements and theories used by this scientist have been changed to make the data appear to support his conclusion:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2077

I apologize for these political comments, but this thread is intrinsically political--no post in a thread about the Nobel Peace Prize can be devoid of political content, because the prize is always awarded for political actions. I hope that by restricting my comments to facts rather than opinion that I've minimized any offense that might be taken.

Regards,

John

I didn't take the time to read your links, but in general, here's my feeling about global warming. We can't prove it beyond any doubt. But we are putting a lot of CO2 (and other stuff into the atmosphere), most of which would not have happened otherwise. And it creates lots of pollution that has known health consequences. Can we really afford to take chances? Plus, there's the added advantage of greater energy independence if we kick our oil habit (which could help with peace, less conflict revolving around oil). In the long run, we WILL gain by trying to reduce our emissions and pollution no matter what. And, technology will improve, which is a good thing by itself.

Because of the long term potential to lessen oil related conflicts, and the potential for conflict from reduced global resources, I think that the choice is justified. Like him or hate him, agree with his politics or not, Gore has promoted global warming in a way that has reached more people than anyone else that I can think of. And that deserves mention.

Jim

[gwyneth]

From its inception, the Peace prize award has more in common than buying a tool from HF than it may seem. Or, for that matter, the Academy award for Best Picture.

Some of the winners are obvious when selected, look questionable decades later, and vice versa. Some stand the test of time and later look like wise choices; some don't.

Consider Theodore Roosevelt, who won it for brokering a peace between Russia and Japan. Historians 100 years later have plenty to say about TR's methods and the results, both short-term and long-term...and much of their analysis is way less favorable than that of the committee that voted him the prize.

[radhak]

This is a funny thread - I am disagreeing with the very posts that I am also agreeing with ...

no post in a thread about the Nobel Peace Prize can be devoid of political content, because the prize is always awarded for political actions.
John

While I am wholly onboard with the idea that the Global Warming debate could do with more fact and less bluster, your repeated comment on the Nobel Peace Prize rankles. Any specific award can be attributed ulterior motives, any office-holder hidden agendas. (Did 'Breakback Mountain' lose for best picture on merit or because its theme riled somebody?). But when you say 'always' you are painting every past winner with a black brush. If you meant there has been controversy with every winner, I can't disagree - even when Aung San Suu Kyi won it, her govt (and China) said it was a conspiracy. But consensus is not always a desirable objective. There can hardly be a more neutral committee than the Nobel unless it were carefully created from UN members, in which case nothing would get done!

the winners in the past 10 years have been :

2006 : MUHAMMAD YUNUS and GRAMEEN BANK for their efforts to create economic and social development from below.

2005 : INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY and MOHAMED ELBARADEI for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.

2004 : WANGARI MAATHAI
for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace

2003 : SHIRIN EBADI
for her efforts for democracy and human rights

2002 : JIMMY CARTER JR., former President of the United States of America,
for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development

2001 : UNITED NATIONS, New York, NY, USA
KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary General

2000 : KIM DAE JUNG for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular.

1999 : DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS (MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES), Brussels, Belgium.

1998 : JOHN HUME and DAVID TRIMBLE for their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland.

1997 :INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO BAN LANDMINES (ICBL) and JODY WILLIAMS for their work for the banning and clearing of anti-personnel mines.

I think the list speaks for itself, even when we look beyond 10 years too. There might be controversy, but 'always' political, I don't think so.

Like him or hate him, agree with his politics or not, Gore has promoted global warming in a way that has reached more people than anyone else that I can think of. And that deserves mention.
Jim

Agreed with all your points, but still - a Nobel Peace prize?

[FL Buckeye]

I can't suggest who should have received the Peace prize but Al Gore wasn't on any list of mine. There were a lot of newspaper articles about the energy his 20 room mansion (plus 8 bathrooms) near Nashville uses. According to reports, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

[jking]

There can hardly be a more neutral committee than the Nobel unless it were carefully created from UN members, in which case nothing would get done!

Surely you're not serious? The UN, neutral? Maybe only from the standpoint that there are so many viewpoints represented that very little can be accomplished. I wouldn't classify it as neutral, though.

the winners in the past 10 years have been :

2006 : MUHAMMAD YUNUS and GRAMEEN BANK for their efforts to create economic and social development from below.

2005 : INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY and MOHAMED ELBARADEI for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.

2004 : WANGARI MAATHAI
for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace

2003 : SHIRIN EBADI
for her efforts for democracy and human rights

2002 : JIMMY CARTER JR., former President of the United States of America,
for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development

2001 : UNITED NATIONS, New York, NY, USA
KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary General

2000 : KIM DAE JUNG for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular.

1999 : DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS (MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES), Brussels, Belgium.

1998 : JOHN HUME and DAVID TRIMBLE for their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland.

1997 :INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO BAN LANDMINES (ICBL) and JODY WILLIAMS for their work for the banning and clearing of anti-personnel mines.

I think the list speaks for itself, even when we look beyond 10 years too. There might be controversy, but 'always' political, I don't think so.

Maybe not "always" political, but, "nearly" always. I'm sorry, but, when I read your list it reads as:

2006 - political
2005 - political
2004 - political
2003 - political
2002 - political
2001 - political (major joke, too)
2000 - political
1999 - non-political
1998 - political
1997 - non-political

While not the intent of the OP, this thread is by its subject nature, a political topic. This is as close to the line as I'm going to get.

[cabinetman]

There's been a lot of comments about who was selected. Does anyone know who else was considered? I'm still waiting for suggestions as to who could have been worthy recipients.

[jziegler]

Agreed with all your points, but still - a Nobel Peace prize?

I was very careful not to say that. When I heard it on the radio this morning, I was very surprised, I didn't think that it made sense. I'm sure that there are people out there more deserving of the prize, but who? I'm not qualified to make that judgment. The reasoning seems a bit weak for a peace prize, there would probably be other (non Nobel) prizes that would fit his work better. And 20 or 30 years from now, who knows what we will think of this.

Jim

[ragswl4]

There's been a lot of comments about who was selected. Does anyone know who else was considered? I'm still waiting for suggestions as to who could have been worthy recipients.

Rush Limbaugh was nominated.

[ragswl4]

As far as global warming goes, I understand that there is a computer model thats predicting the results of pollution on the Ozone layer and how this is causing global warming and predicting future weather patterns. I also understand that if one inputs historical data into this model that it fails to accurately predict past weather patterns. Hmmmm? Maybe its a Mattel model made in China?

[JR]

2006 - political
2005 - political
2004 - political
2003 - political
2002 - political
2001 - political (major joke, too)
2000 - political
1999 - non-political
1998 - political
1997 - non-political

While not the intent of the OP, this thread is by its subject nature, a political topic. This is as close to the line as I'm going to get.

I appreciate that you won't (and shouldn't) express political views here. But it is possible to discuss why you view these awards as political without expressing an opinion about the merits of the politics involved? I'd be interested to uderstand this aspect.

JR

[jstevens]

...in general, here's my feeling about global warming. We can't prove it beyond any doubt. But we are putting a lot of CO2 (and other stuff into the atmosphere), most of which would not have happened otherwise. And it creates lots of pollution that has known health consequences. Can we really afford to take chances?

Agreed. There's no doubt that the earth is warming. I'd agree that all of the good scientific research shows that mankind is responsible for some of it. But the answer to the question of whether we can afford to disregard the risk that we're contributing to global warming isn't obvious. Although you didn't have time to read the info at the links I posted in my last message, I hope you'll take the time to read this one, about the "precautionary principle;"

http://brneurosci.org/pprinciple.html

Here's the idea in a nutshell, quoted from the article: "The precautionary principle states that when there is some suspicion of potential danger, a lack of scientific consensus should not be used to postpone preventative or remedial action. [text omitted] Upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the precautionary principle is much more than a policy of 'placing the burden of proof on someone who introduces new technology.' It...changes the way discussions of new technologies are conducted, so that rather than considering both sides impartially, one side of a dispute is placed at an almost insurmountable disadvantage."

What will it cost us to reduce or eliminate global warming to the extent that it's man-made, and what will we get from it in return? Keep in mind two key points that aren't obvious to everyone: (1) some of the effects of global warming will be "good" in the sense that they will decrease (human) mortality; and (2) the cost of reducing global warming will put a drag on the economy that will itself create social costs such as increasing poverty and decreasing the production of food, clothing, shelter and medicine. The latter negative effects will be greater in the developing and "third world" countries than they will be in developed nations like the U.S.

Plus, there's the added advantage of greater energy independence if we kick our oil habit (which could help with peace, less conflict revolving around oil). In the long run, we WILL gain by trying to reduce our emissions and pollution no matter what.

I agree with you that we have to consider the reduction of air pollution and dependence on petroleum as benefits to be balanced against the costs of reducing carbon dioxide production. But I have to disagree with this--

And, technology will improve, which is a good thing by itself.

Technology is neutral in and of itself. It can be used for good or for ill. And we must consider which kinds of technology will improve, and at the expense of what other kinds of technology. That's the way an economy runs, whether it's a market economy or a centrally-controlled one: the supply of minds and hands is limited, so when we devote them to decreasing CO2 emissions, we have to take them away from other things, like learning how to increase the food supply, developing new medicines, caring for our aging population, etc.

Because of the long term potential to lessen oil related conflicts, and the potential for conflict from reduced global resources, I think that the choice is justified.

You may be right, and I have a certain amount of sympathy for that argument. But I think its important that we as a people are honest with ourselves about why we are reducing CO2 emissions--is it to save the environment, or to make ourselves less vulnerable to economic or military threats from oil-producing countries and their allies? To use the argument that's been used in regard to the war in Iraq, if we're going to declare "war on global warming," let's not base it on a lie.

Regards,

John

[jking]

I appreciate that you won't (and shouldn't) express political views here. But it is possible to discuss why you view these awards as political without expressing an opinion about the merits of the politics involved? I'd be interested to uderstand this aspect.

JR

All I did was read through radhak's list of the winners & the explanation of why they received the award. I assume he sourced this information from some official list of recipients. Many who have received the award are credited with something of the nature of "promoting democracy & human rights", or "promoting peaceful resolutions to conflict in...". Many of these are very respectable things, however, most are political in nature (global or regional politics).

[Tom Slick]

next year Michael Moore will win for is "documentaries".


keep in mind that the Nobel prize was created by Nobel to spin a positive connotation to Nobel's name after his death. that sounds political to me.