Gore and U.N. Panel Win Peace Prize for Climate Work

[jbg]

I'm glad I hadn't eaten yet when my wife delivered this "news". I cannot for the life of me fathom Al Gore winning a Nobel Peace Prize, certainly not for "Convenient Falsehoods" </ sarcasm>. Political correctness has sunk to new lows. Well, maybe not. Jimmy Carter and Yasir Arafat also garnered Peace Prizes.

Osama for 2008? New York Times article excerpts below (link):

October 13, 2007

Gore and U.N. Panel Win Peace Prize for Climate Work

By WALTER GIBBS and SARAH LYALL

OSLO, Oct. 12 — Former Vice President Al Gore, who emerged from his loss in the muddled 2000 presidential election to devote himself to his passion as an environmental crusader, was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations network of scientists.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised both “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change.â€

The prize is a vindication for Mr. Gore, whose cautionary film about the consequences of climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth,†won the 2007 Academy Award for best documentary, even as conservatives in the United States denounced it as alarmist and exaggerated.

“I will accept this award on behalf of all the people that have been working so long and so hard to try to get the message out about this planetary emergency,†Mr. Gore said Friday in Palo Alto, Calif., standing with his wife, Tipper, and four members of the United Nations climate panel. “I’m going back to work right now,†he said.

The award was also a validation for the United Nations panel, which in its early days was vilified by those who disputed the scientific case for a human role in climate change. In New Delhi, the Indian climatologist who heads the panel, Rajendra K. Pachauri, said that science had won out over skepticism.

Mr. Gore, a vociferous opponent of the Bush administration on a range of issues, including the Iraq war, is the second Democratic politician to win the peace prize this decade. Former President Jimmy Carter won in 2002.

******

In its citation on Friday, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said the United Nations panel and Mr. Gore had focused “on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby reduce the future threat to the security of mankind.â€

It concluded, “Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.â€

[sharkman]

Yippee, Gore won, handshakes all around.

I'm afraid this will not help matters, it will only encourage his ranting. Soon he will claim he invented the...Global Warming Scare.

[Guest American Woman]

Soon he will claim he invented the...Global Warming Scare.

Or to state it the way is is/was, others will soon be claiming he claimed he invented the...Global Warming Scare.

[maldon_road]

I'm glad I hadn't eaten yet when my wife delivered this "news". I cannot for the life of me fathom Al Gore winning a Nobel Peace Prize, certainly not for "Convenient Falsehoods" </ sarcasm>. Political correctness has sunk to new lows. Well, maybe not. Jimmy Carter and Yasir Arafat also garnered Peace Prizes.

It's sad when politics is the deciding factor in the world's most famous prize. It also demeans those who might have had a legitimate claim to it.

[margrace]

I presume that most of the above poster life in the cities. The weather you experrience is not a very good predictor of Global Changes. You have to live in the boonies to actually see and experience what is really good.

[scribblet]

What do you expect from a group that gave a peace price to Yassar Arrafat - now they give it to liars too and what does it have to do with world peace ?

[jbg]

It's sad when politics is the deciding factor in the world's most famous prize. It also demeans those who might have had a legitimate claim to it.

Actuially, I think it was more political correctness than politics. A fine distinction admittedly.

[Topaz]

I heard that Gore got because he helped bring attention to globe warming and I know the Cons in the US are having a field day on this one. The only thing I could add is... at least he didn't put the world in one hellva mess like Bush has brought down on this world!! I don't think Bush is in line for this award ever!!

[Drea]

Ha ha Topaz!

Bush's slogan should be "Making Things Worse Since 2000" and his award would be the "No-Bell Warmonger's trophy". It would have a button that when pressed would say "God told me to!" LOL

Heck he probably uses the "magic eight ball" to make his deci.... hey wait a minute! he HAS used eight balls...

Edited October 13, 2007 by Drea

[geoffrey]

This is reflective of the very sad, over politicized, state of science today:

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore

--

He's not dedicated to science. He's dedicated to selling the Green agenda.

[Drea]

I also believe global warming has be exaggerated -- turned into hyperbole.

But this must be done to bring attention to it.

An ad in the paper the other day (by a Christian group) "50% of abortions end in death!"

Either half of the fetuses aborted don't die or half of the women that abort their fetuses die. Which is it? Neither are true. The goal of the ad is to scare people out of aborting "You could die!". The fact that it is a flat out lie (half of all women who get abortions DO NOT die nor do half of all abortions end up in live births). Nonetheless folks believe the hyberbole.

on global climate change... our earth is still "moving away" from the last ice age. We are seeing the last ice age finally come to an end. While humans do contribute to it we are nothing compared to violent volcanic eruptions...

Edited October 13, 2007 by Drea

[maldon_road]

I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, -- Al Gore

Well, he sure did that, as a judge just ruled.

[noahbody]

While humans do contribute to it we are nothing compared to violent volcanic eruptions...

We should likely offer Gore as a sacrifice to the Volcano Gods. There's no time for debate! Hurry, throw him in!

[sharkman]

This is reflective of the very sad, over politicized, state of science today:

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore

--

He's not dedicated to science. He's dedicated to selling the Green agenda.

I remember the audacity of that quote, admitting he would lie to manipulate fear into people. I read a headline on this award that says it all,"A Coup For Junk Science".

[Drea]

One side calls it "Junk Science"

the other side calls it an an emergency.

It is somewhere in the middle

Yes the global climate is changing.

yes humans have contributed to it but parking every car on earth, closing all the factories, shutting off all the lights and singing cumbaya won't do a darn thing.

No there is nothing we can do about it except adapt. We will probably lose some animal/plant species. (Mother nature is nasty that way -- she killed of the Mastadons not too long ago!) We will probably lose valuable farmland as well. We need to anticipate the changes and adapt to them.

[sharkman]

Making a judgement call by simply comparing each side and meeting in the middle is no way to make a decision. If judges did that many innocent people would be found guilty.

[Drea]

What I mean is that each side takes their postion to the extreme.

side A: the world is going to boil in the next 20 years and humans are responsible for 100% of it!

side B: the world is not changing at all, humans have done nothing to harm the planet ever!

The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

We need to anticipate the global climate change... will Bangladesh be underwater in 75 years? If so we should plan to move those millions of people. Will the US midwest still be the breadbasket or will it become a dustbowl?

We need to prepare, not run around like chicken little OR deny it utterly.

[jbg]

I remember the audacity of that quote, admitting he would lie to manipulate fear into people. I read a headline on this award that says it all,"A Coup For Junk Science".

It's on the same par with the scaremongers about Soviet-US nuclear war. The fact is that nukes benefit the US far more than the Soviets, thus the interest by the Left in scaring little children. I remember well being told, by my teachers, in 1966-7 that if a nuclear attack occurred during school hours, we'd be safe in a fallout shelter, but we may well never see our parents again. I was 9 at the time. These same people are not trying to scare people about a far more likely threat from an Islamic bomb, given the irrationality of its likely users and the fact that the "first use" country will not be the US.

Similarly, Gore starts his "crock-u-mentary" movie with a scene of a little girl crying over an ice cream cone melting on a hot day, as if those didn't exist pre-whatever year Gore decided antropogenic global warming started.

[Higgly]

There is a piece in the Toronto Star today (Saturday, Oct 13, page A19) about a British Judge who has ruled that 9 of the startling "truths" in Al Gore's movie are in fact incorrect or not proven...

1) The sea level will rise 6.1 meters as a result of melting ice

2) People from low-lying islands in the South Pacific have had to migrate to New Zealand

3) Global warming will shut down the Gulf Stream

4) Gore's graphs on carbon dioxide and temperature do not prove his point

5) The disappearance of the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro is due to global warming

6) THe drying of Lake Chad is the result of global warming

7) Katrina was the result of global warming

8) Polar bears are drowning beause of the melting ice cap

9) coral reefs are bleaching worldwide because of global warming

There is another article in the same edition ruminating on whether the Nobel prize might mean an easy ride to the White House for Gore

Edited October 14, 2007 by Higgly

[jbg]

There is another article in the same edition ruminating on whether the Nobel prize might mean an easy ride to the White House for Gore

With a February 5 super-primary looming, it's a bit late for Gore to get into this game, unless there are scandalous revelations about Hilary, and she is forced to stand down. Logically, her voters are his voters. Any such stand-down would occur after she's either locked up nomination or is nominated, and the blogosphere goes to work.

If Gore becomes President and tries to ram any extremist agenda through, he'll quickly sink to Carter or first-two-years Bill Clinton levels of ineffectiveness and chaos. The country won't stand for it.

Edited October 14, 2007 by jbg

[maldon_road]

There is another article in the same edition ruminating on whether the Nobel prize might mean an easy ride to the White House for Gore

In 2000 the US had been in an unprecedented business boom. Gore's opponent could hardly put two coherent sentences together. And all Gore had to win was to have won his own state - Tennessee. He didn't.

Gore is used goods politically. The moment he throws his hat in the ring all the lies in his propaganda movie will become huge issues. No way he can come even close to winning the Dem nomination.

[Guest American Woman]

There is a piece in the Toronto Star today (Saturday, Oct 13, page A19) about a British Judge who has ruled that 9 of the startling "truths" in Al Gore's movie are in fact incorrect or not proven...

1) The sea level will rise 6.1 meters as a result of melting ice

2) People from low-lying islands in the South Pacific have had to migrate to New Zealand

3) Global warming will shut down the Gulf Stream

4) Gore's graphs on carbon dioxide and temperature do not prove his point

5) The disappearance of the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro is due to global warming

6) THe drying of Lake Chad is the result of global warming

7) Katrina was the result of global warming

8) Polar bears are drowning beause of the melting ice cap

9) coral reefs are bleaching worldwide because of global warming

There is another article in the same edition ruminating on whether the Nobel prize might mean an easy ride to the White House for Gore

A British judge, eh? Sounds like a real scientific sort of chap to me.

But let's go with this judge's claims. Which ones are "incorrect" and which ones are "not proven?" As for the ones he claims are incorrect, where is his proof?

Until I have that information, the opinion of this unknown judge means nothing to me.

Edited October 14, 2007 by American Woman

[jbg]

Gore is used goods politically. The moment he throws his hat in the ring all the lies in his propaganda movie will become huge issues. No way he can come even close to winning the Dem nomination.

Given that I consider him a fraud, I wish it were that simple. It isn't.

No question, he has re-invented himself. If, as I expect, Hilary turns out to be ethically challenged, and after sewing up the nomination has to decamp, Gore would be a readily availabe compromise candidate.

[maldon_road]

A British judge, eh? Sounds like a real scientific sort of chap to me.

But let's go with this judge's claims. Which ones are "incorrect" and which ones are "not proven?" As for the ones he claims are incorrect, where is his proof?

Until I have that information, the opinion of this unknown judge means nothing to me.

The judge found the movie to be reasonable:

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCCâ€.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).â€

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

He suggested that schools use a balanced approach to dealing with global warning, which is reasonable:

The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the Government can continue with its plan to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided†views.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle2633838.ece

In the event that Al is stupid enough to try for the Democratic nomination every other Dem will be merciless in repeatedly pointing out the errors in his movie.

[jbg]

The judge found the movie to be reasonable:

He suggested that schools use a balanced approach to dealing with global warning, which is reasonable:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle2633838.ece

In my son's school last winter, the science teacher handed out an article pointing out that Gore ducked debating, called "Will Al Gore Melt" (link to post containing major excerpt from article and a probably expired link to article).

If anyone wants, PM me your e-mail address and I'll send, off the WSJ cite, a link to the article good for seven (7) days.