NationStates Jolt Archive

Gore, U.N. body win Nobel Peace Prize

By DOUG MELLGREN, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago

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.

"I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize," Gore said. "We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary on global warming, won an Academy Award this year and he had been widely expected to win the prize.

He said he would donate his share of the $1.5 million that accompanies the prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization devoted to conveying the urgency of solving the climate crisis.

"His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change," the Nobel citation said. "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

It cited Gore's awareness at an early stage "of the climatic challenges the world is facing.

Gore, 59, has said he does not plan to run for president next year, despite a national movement to draft him, and Peace Prize committee chairman Ole Danbolt Mjoes said a possible run was not his concern.

"I want this prize to have everyone ... every human being, asking what they should do," Mjoes said. "What he (Gore) decides to do from here is his personal decision."

However, when asked about the 2008 U.S. elections, he said: "I am very much in support for all who support changes."

The last American to win the prize, or share it, was former President Carter in 2002.

The committee cited the Panel on Climate Change for two decades of scientific reports that have "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."

Members of the panel, a network of 2,000 scientists, were surprised that it was chosen to share the honor with Gore, a spokeswoman said.

"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 panel forecast this year that all regions of the world will be affected by climate warming and that a third of the Earth's species will vanish if global temperatures continue to rise until they are 3.6 degrees above the average temperature in the 1980s and '90s.

"Decisive action in the next decade can still avoid some of the most catastrophic scenarios the IPCC has forecast," said Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official.

He urged consensus among the United States and other countries on attacking the problem.

Climate change has moved high on the international agenda this year. The U.N. climate panel has been releasing reports, talks on a replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate are set to resume and on Europe's northern fringe, where the awards committee works, there is growing concern about the melting Arctic.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming, "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

Jan Egeland, a Norwegian peace mediator and former U.N. undersecretary for humanitarian affairs, also called climate change more than an environmental issue.

"It is a question of war and peace," said Egeland, now director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo. "We're already seeing the first climate wars, in the Sahel belt of Africa." He said nomads and herders are in conflict with farmers because the changing climate has brought drought and a shortage of fertile lands.

The committee often uses the coveted prize to cast the global spotlight on a relatively little-known person or cause. Since Gore already has a high profile some had doubted that the committee would bestow the prize on him "because he does not need it."

In recent years, the committee has broadened the interpretation of peacemaking and disarmament efforts outlined by Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel in creating the prize with his 1895 will. The prize now often also recognizes human rights, democracy, elimination of poverty, sharing resources and the environment.

Two of the past three prizes have been untraditional, with the 2004 award to Kenya environmentalist Wangari Maathai and last year's award to Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank, which makes to micro-loans to the country's poor.

The prize also includes a gold medal and a diploma.

On Thursday, Doris Lessing, author of dozens of works from short stories to science fiction, including the classic "The Golden Notebook," won the Nobel Prize for literature.

On Wednesday, Gerhard Ertl of Germany won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for studies of chemical reactions on solid surfaces. On Tuesday, France's Albert Fert and German Peter Gruenberg won the physics award for discovering a phenomenon that lets computers and digital music players store reams of data on ever-shrinking hard disks.

Americans Mario R. Capecchi and Oliver Smithies, and Briton Sir Martin J. Evans, won the medicine prize Monday for groundbreaking discoveries that led to a powerful technique for manipulating mouse genes.

The prize for economics will be announced Monday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_on_re_eu/nobel_peace

And we're going to hear the screams of those with the heads buried in the sand about bias from the Noble committee and how evil Gore is in 5... 4... 3... 2...

Your internets salute you, Mr. Gore.

Your internets salute you, Mr. Gore.

GFT

Also QFLOL!

Too bad Gore won't run for PotUS in '08, I'd really like to see a Nader/Gore ticket... not that they would be likely to win, anyway.

It must be a proud day for the Gore family -- to finally be in the company of such immortal greats as Yasser Arafat...

Too bad Gore won't run for PotUS in '08, I'd really like to see a Nader/Gore ticket... not that they would be likely to win, anyway.


Yeah, that would be fun, watching US industry flee abroad faster than it is at the moment :p

But by a strange coincidence, a UK judge gives al gores film a kicking for being alarmist with the truth ........

It must be a proud day for the Gore family -- to finally be in the company of such immortal greats as Yasser Arafat...

You're just jealous Bush and Cheney don't get one. :p

It must be a proud day for the Gore family -- to finally be in the company of such immortal greats as Yasser Arafat...

...But a day of some shame too, as they remember Henry Kissinger.....

It must be a proud day for the Gore family -- to finally be in the company of such immortal greats as Yasser Arafat...

Is that talking point made to make you sound as ignorant about history and the reasons for why Arafat got to share the prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres as it does, or what? The Oslo Accords and their follow-up were monumental for their time and very deserving of the prize - the subsequent cluster fuck that Israel would become when one of their own right-wingers killed Rabin and the downward spiral created by the repercussions thereof has no bearing on the fact that at the time the prize was awarded Arafat, Rabin and Peres had accomplished great things for peace.

If you wanted to make some sort of historically accurate jibe about the Peace Prize, you should have gone with Kissinger - now there was a prize so undeserved that the man he shared it with, Le Duc Tho, refused it.

If you had gone with that, you would have perhaps stood above the people who disseminate the lie that Al Gore is ever to have said that he "invented" the Internet, but you aren't actually concerned with accuracy and the truth, are you? Thought not.

Yeah, that would be fun, watching US industry flee abroad faster than it is at the moment

But by a strange coincidence, a UK judge gives al gores film a kicking for being alarmist with the truth ........
There's already a decent-sized thread on Justice Burton's ruling. In it you will find explained that the criticisms of Gore's film, and the ruling, are about the way that the film presents certain things as proven, when in fact they are not. If anything the ruling upheld the bulk of the content of the film, by only counselling caution about certain select claims rather than imposing a blanket sanction on it.

By the way, does anyone else think that "alarmist with the truth" is a very odd phrase? (not having a dig at you, Cypresaria, just thought it was a strange way to put something) :)

It must be a proud day for the Gore family -- to finally be in the company of such immortal greats as Yasser Arafat...
Is that just supposed to be some kind of 'guilt by association' snipe? One of the BBC's commentators said earlier on that the Nobel award would likely carry less weight in the US than the fact that the film got an Oscar. I didn't really believe it, but perhaps they were right.

Hmmm... strange choice.

I'm confused. How has either promoted the abolition or reduction of armed forces and held or promoted peace congresses through focusing on the climate?

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming, "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

Reading the OP helps. As does reading the Norwegian Prize Committee's press release (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html).

I'm confused. How has either promoted the abolition or reduction of armed forces and held or promoted peace congresses through focusing on the climate?

So what did Gore do for peace? Oh wait...very little. There are people more deserving of the peace prize who actually advocated for you know...peace.

So what did Gore do for peace? Oh wait...very little. There are people more deserving of the peace prize who actually advocated for you know...peace.

Is that speaking as an historian?

So what did Gore do for peace? Oh wait...very little. There are people more deserving of the peace prize who actually advocated for you know...peace.

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming, "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

Is that speaking as an historian?

Global Warming has nothing to do with peace. It has to do with science. So tell me...what has this doc have to do with promoting peace?

Global Warming has nothing to do with peace. It has to do with science. So tell me...what has this doc have to do with promoting peace?

Nothing.

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming, "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

*snorts*

All it is is awareness. It is not even promoting peace. The Peace Prize is supposed to go to those who prompote peace hence the title PEACE PRIZE!!

According to Nobel's will, 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".

WOOPS!!! Looks like the Committee screwed the pooch this time. Alwell. Enjoy it Mr. Gore. You won it but you did nothing to deserve it. Peace out.

It's an... interesting... choice. I'm not sure I agree completely, but I do see the Nobel Comittee's rationale behind this.

Is that speaking as an historian?

Haha, it really, really never gets old.

*snorts*

All it is is awareness. It is not even promoting peace. The Peace Prize is supposed to go to those who prompote peace hence the title PEACE PRIZE!!
How is promoting awareness of a problem that might cause wars - a problem many deny exist despite scientific consensus - incompatible with working to promote peace?

WOOPS!!! Looks like the Committee screwed the pooch this time. Alwell. Enjoy it Mr. Gore. You won it but you did nothing to deserve it. Peace out.

"shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations," is the key phrase, and that seems to have been fulfilled. Yes, it's close to the line, but it hasn't passed the line.

And why no comment on the ICC?

How is promoting awareness of a problem that might cause wars - a problem many deny exist despite scientific consensus - incompatible with working to promote peace?

Because numerous other things causes wars. People are to quick to pull this card out and frankly...this should go under some other category. What about those who actually advocate peace? His doc only brings awareness but does not convene peace conferences but global warming conferences. That's it.

"shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations," is the key phrase, and that seems to have been fulfilled. Yes, it's close to the line, but it hasn't passed the line.

And why no comment on the ICC?

The International Criminal Court? Because the ICC did not win it. The IPCC on the other hand...

So what did Gore do for peace? Oh wait...very little. There are people more deserving of the peace prize who actually advocated for you know...peace.

Like last year's winner?

IIRC someone who gave *loans* to wimmin got the prize last year.

Further proof the Peace Prize is the gag gift.

Because numerous other things causes wars. People are to quick to pull this card out and frankly...this should go under some other category. What about those who actually advocate peace? His doc only brings awareness but does not convene peace conferences but global warming conferences. That's it.
As you say, numerous other things causes wars. This, however, may be one of them, and a serious one at that. Some feel the crisis in Darfur may be the first armed conflict that has risen directly from climate change, and that of the fewer number of wars happening around the globe, ties to climate change may be found in a large part of the newest ones.

The IPCC talks about 30-40 million environmental refugees in the world today, and fears the number might increase to 200, 300, or 400 million in the future when humanity meets the impact of droughts, floods and extreme weather.

Could not an effort to preempt such situations by advocating a change in policy among the governments of the world be likened to advocating peace? If raising the awareness will hinder conflicts and strife, is it not within the spirit of the peace prize? The Nobel Committee seems to think so.

The arguments aren't all new, btw. They sound like the ones made when Wangari Maathai won her prize.


The International Criminal Court? Because the ICC did not win it. The IPCC on the other hand...
My gawd! Is that the first typo you've ever seen me make? Sound the alarm! THE WORLD IS AT AN END!!! :eek: :rolleyes:

And heavens, it could have been another ICC...

...and yes? Still no comment on the IPCC?

Like last year's winner?

IIRC someone who gave *loans* to wimmin got the prize last year.

Grameen bank (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2006/index.html) and Muhammad Yunus.

You're just jealous Bush and Cheney don't get one. :p

Yes, I ran out of handkerchiefs while crying about that... maybe they could have a Cheney/Bush. I don't know if George Walker Texas Ranger Bush can run for VP, but there are a lot of other Bushes to keep family tradition, like Jeb, Neil, Marvin, Dorothy...

Here in Italy our worst risk is having Berlusconi again, but even Silvio pales in comparison with the Shrubs.

But by a strange coincidence, a UK judge gives al gores film a kicking for being alarmist with the truth ........

I somehow have more trust in the Nobel Committee than in a single UK judge, meaning no disrespect to the Court, sah.;)

Global Warming has nothing to do with peace. It has to do with science. So tell me...what has this doc have to do with promoting peace?

About as much as microfinance, which - according to the historical record - was found worthy of the award last year.

Even today it's pretty clear that the impact of international anti-Americanism is overrated. A prominent American political figure just won the Nobel Peace Prize, a great honor for himself and for our system, which provides him with the avenues in which to discuss these important issues.

"The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct, It rather seems that Gore's doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace."

Czech President Vaclav Klaus

The emperor has no clothes! But congrats to Professor Harold Hill..err.. I mean Commander McBragg ...wait..Mr. Gore on his successful Snake Oil Enterprise.

"The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct, It rather seems that Gore's doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace."

Czech President Vaclav Klaus

The emperor has no clothes! But congrats to Professor Harold Hill..err.. I mean Commander McBragg ...wait..Mr. Gore on his successful Snake Oil Enterprise.

You base that on what Klaus says? Oh dear...

You base that on what Klaus says? Oh dear...

Noooo... I base that on the obvious fact that the "Peace" prize is now a joke, given to such luminaries of peace and enlightenment as Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, and Mikhail Gorbachev.

*snorts*

All it is is awareness. It is not even promoting peace. The Peace Prize is supposed to go to those who prompote peace hence the title PEACE PRIZE!!



WOOPS!!! Looks like the Committee screwed the pooch this time. Alwell. Enjoy it Mr. Gore. You won it but you did nothing to deserve it. Peace out.

Oh come on, they gave it to Yasser Arafat, it's a joke.

You base that on what Klaus says? Oh dear...

Yeah, ask Velka Morava about what the Czechs think of Klaus and his claims. Ultimate moron, more or less.

The question is, why Gore when there's a whole bunch of other environmentalist out there making films and doing something about the environments at the same time. Gore kinna just made a film that contradicts his entire lifestyle and existence. Maybe he might remotely deserve it more if he live what he's advocating.

Seriously if this keeps up they might start giving peace award to PETA.

Noooo... I base that on the obvious fact that the "Peace" prize is now a joke, given to such luminaries of peace and enlightenment as Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, and Mikhail Gorbachev.

This is the first time I see someone claiming that Gorbačëv didn't deserve the Nobel prize for peace.
Then again, the nick of the one who claimed that might be a dead giveaway.:rolleyes:

This is the first time I see someone claiming that Gorbačëv didn't deserve the Nobel prize for peace.
Then again, the nick of the one who claimed that might be a dead giveaway.:rolleyes:

I actually feel that since Henry Kissinger is a recipient of the Peace Prize, it is somewhat devalued. Yeah, sure, he's a smart guy and all, but he participated in some really nasty stuff, I mean, the overthrow of Allende was his pet project. I bet you could even make the argument that Kiss-kiss is a genuine war criminal.

I actually feel that since Henry Kissinger is a recipient of the Peace Prize, it is somewhat devalued. Yeah, sure, he's a smart guy and all, but he participated in some really nasty stuff, I mean, the overthrow of Allende was his pet project. I bet you could even make the argument that Kiss-kiss is a genuine war criminal.

Very much agree with you on this.

Oh come on, they gave it to Yasser Arafat, it's a joke.
Yeah, we all laughed merrily when Médecins Sans Frontières got the award, and we chuckled when John Hume and David Trimble recieved it. Peace in Northern Ireland? Hah! It'll never happen, I tell you! And the world just lost interest after Wangari Muta Maathai got it... Didn't they?

This is the first time I see someone claiming that Gorbačëv didn't deserve the Nobel prize for peace.
Then again, the nick of the one who claimed that might be a dead giveaway.:rolleyes:

Yeah, I should better learn who not to waste energy responding to...

I actually feel that since Henry Kissinger is a recipient of the Peace Prize, it is somewhat devalued. Yeah, sure, he's a smart guy and all, but he participated in some really nasty stuff, I mean, the overthrow of Allende was his pet project. I bet you could even make the argument that Kiss-kiss is a genuine war criminal.

Absolutely, but claiming tha Gorby didn't make anything significative for peace, that's another story!

It must be a proud day for the Gore family -- to finally be in the company of such immortal greats as Yasser Arafat...
The US has not had too much to be proud of on the international scene during the past 7 years. Perhaps you could put politics aside for a moment and reflect on the significant contribution Gore has made to improve the health of the world's environment?

My god, the amount of sniffling going on here you'd think that nap time at the day care had been canceled...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_on_re_eu/nobel_peace

And we're going to hear the screams of those with the heads buried in the sand about bias from the Noble committee and how evil Gore is in 5... 4... 3... 2...

Of course the Nobel committee has a liberal bias. They give medals to people who display merit. How elitist can you get?

Yeah, we all laughed merrily when Médecins Sans Frontières got the award, and we chuckled when John Hume and David Trimble recieved it. Peace in Northern Ireland? Hah! It'll never happen, I tell you! And the world just lost interest after Wangari Muta Maathai got it... Didn't they?

And of course, the peace prize lost all credibility when they gave one to that war mongering fuck Nelson Mandela.

The US has not had too much to be proud of on the international scene during the past 7 years. Perhaps you could put politics aside for a moment and reflect on the significant contribution Gore has made to improve the health of the world's environment?

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with peace.

Oh come on, they gave it to Yasser Arafat, it's a joke.

Yea I know its a joke. Sad really :(

The US has not had too much to be proud of on the international scene during the past 7 years. Perhaps you could put politics aside for a moment and reflect on the significant contribution Gore has made to improve the health of the world's environment?

So, he made one film, and traveled around in his private jet talking about global warming, and when he's done he goes back to his mansion which use more energy than a small town, and I bet he has one or two SUV in the garage. Yea, great guy.

So, he made one film, and traveled around in his private jet talking about global warming, and when he's done he goes back to his mansion which use more energy than a small town, and I bet he has one or two SUV in the garage. Yea, great guy.

and I'm curious as to how his personal habits invalidates his message? It well might make him a hypocrite a bit, but does not disprove anything he says.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with peace.

You're honestly going to display your ignorance of context and sit there and seriously claim that global climate change, which has already engendered resource conflicts and proved to be a threat to international stability, is not a threat to peace and that working to assuage its effects will have nothing to do with peace?

Right. Let me guess, you were one of those people who bitched about poverty "not having anything to do with peace" the last year, and also then showed how you can only think in one dimension and are incapable of following a causation trail. It all has to be direct with your ilk - can't have context or requisites for peace, no, no!

and I'm curious as to how his personal habits invalidates his message? It well might make him a hypocrite a bit, but does not disprove anything he says.

Kinda makes you wonder though, I mean all of his message is doom and gloom, and then he does the same acts that is dooming us all to the gloom that he is preaching, ehhh you begin to wonder how much of a threat we're really in. I mean if the guy spreading the message doesn't seem to be too concern about it in his private life, then why should we?

I'll readily concede that my knowledge about both the Peace Prize and Al Gore's engagement against global warming and their respective history converge against zero, but it amazes me that they chose to honor such a 'recent' activity (as I understand it), different from the long times the 'scientific' discoveries usually have to prove themselves before being suchly recognized.

And how illuminating to see you here, Fassitude.

I think it's great that Gore is working his ass off showing the dangers of global warming, and I really admire him for that. (but to set the record straight, I don't admire him as a politician....just that he is so into proving the truth of global warming).

Having said that, I don't think this prize should have gone to him as I don't think he, out of everyone in the world, has been the hardest worker for peace.:rolleyes:

and I'm curious as to how his personal habits invalidates his message? It well might make him a hypocrite a bit, but does not disprove anything he says.

They're just trying their old Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacies and hoping they'll stick.

Really, the first things I thought of when I read that he'd been awarded the prize (Nobel prizes are not "won") was "oh, this'll piss of the USA rightists - great!" and "oh, let's see how long it takes for some idiot not to get how climate change is linked to peace and stability". Didn't take very long, since I had NSG open in another tab...

And of course, the peace prize lost all credibility when they gave one to that war mongering fuck Nelson Mandela.

Agreed.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with peace.

Agreed.

And how illuminating to see you here, Fassitude.

Hab' ich dir gesagt dass ich dich liebe? Soll ich?

It must be a proud day for the Gore family -- to finally be in the company of such immortal greats as Yasser Arafat...

Oh come on, they gave it to Yasser Arafat, it's a joke.

Are refuted by...

Is that talking point made to make you sound as ignorant about history and the reasons for why Arafat got to share the prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres as it does, or what? The Oslo Accords and their follow-up were monumental for their time and very deserving of the prize - the subsequent cluster fuck that Israel would become when one of their own right-wingers killed Rabin and the downward spiral created by the repercussions thereof has no bearing on the fact that at the time the prize was awarded Arafat, Rabin and Peres had accomplished great things for peace.

If you wanted to make some sort of historically accurate jibe about the Peace Prize, you should have gone with Kissinger - now there was a prize so undeserved that the man he shared it with, Le Duc Tho, refused it.

If you had gone with that, you would have perhaps stood above the people who disseminate the lie that Al Gore is ever to have said that he "invented" the Internet, but you aren't actually concerned with accuracy and the truth, are you? Thought not.

I love it when I come into a thread dreading the task of pointing out the obvious to those too steeped in talking-point grudges to even attempt to look at it, and then someone does it for me.

Global Warming has nothing to do with peace. It has to do with science. So tell me...what has this doc have to do with promoting peace?

Really? So when climate change dries up the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa and all those people who need water to survive start either tapping other nations' aquifers or just walkin' on over and taking water outright -- you don't think that's gonna start something? Darfur, anyone?

Shit fire and save matches, man -- just 'cause you PERsonally don't like Gore is no reason to act like a petulant child when his work is recognized.

And please, let's stuff the nonsense about "doesn't live what he preaches", 'cause there are very few politicians who do. The fiscal conservatives who spend more on BORROWED MONEY than any liberal EVER has, the "law and order" conservatives AND liberals who get arrested for breaking the law. ALL those, REGARDLESS of political stripe, who make hay on "moral issues" and "family values" and then get divorced on pace to surpass Liz Taylor and are found in trysts -- sometimes even with women -- please.

I think using a private jet (as if he were the only one :rolleyes:) to spread a message about conservation and global climate change is a far lesser degree of hypocrisy than stumping for anti-gay legislation and then getting caught with your hand in the cockie jar, or even giving a coal mine mogul the head position at MSHA.

I think Gore comes off as smug, too, but I'm not about to suddenly declare the Nobel Prize Committee a fraud for recognizing his efforts. Does the Prize miss? Sure it does (Kissinger). But how's about we look at the larger picture here instead of the carefully cropped snapshots offered up by Rush & Co., huh? Just once?

You're honestly going to display your ignorance of context and sit there and seriously claim that global climate change, which has already engendered resource conflicts and proved to be a threat to international stability, is not a threat to peace and that working to assuage its effects will have nothing to do with peace?

Right. Let me guess, you were one of those people who bitched about poverty "not having anything to do with peace" the last year, and also then showed how you can only think in one dimension and are incapable of following a causation trail. It all has to be direct with your ilk - can't have context or requisites for peace, no, no!

So why didn't the prize go to someone researching alternative energy instead? Unlike global warming Peak Oil will cause war, and a very nasty one when it hits, or when people realize it. Look at the way Russia is saber rattling. Sure Gore did some work on global warming, but at the end of the day it's just not that fucking important. Name me one war fought over climate change.

Hab' ich dir gesagt dass ich dich liebe? Soll ich?

I've never heard you tell SoWiBi you love him, but as to whether or not you should tell him...well, that's up to you.

[/attempt to dispel a microscopic part of the "dumb American" myth, and no, I did not use a translator program or site]

Kinda makes you wonder though, I mean all of his message is doom and gloom, and then he does the same acts that is dooming us all to the gloom that he is preaching, ehhh you begin to wonder how much of a threat we're really in. I mean if the guy spreading the message doesn't seem to be too concern about it in his private life, then why should we?

do you not remember your side getting their asses utterly handed to them on this very issue on this very forum in the not-so-distant past?

It is a sad, sad day when bad science, manipulated data and proven-wrong conclusions garner such an award.

I remember a day when the Nobel actually meant something...........now all it seems to be is another political tool for the drooling loony left.

Wow. Someone noticed that temperatures are rising.

Unable to further their evil Socialist agendae any other way, I can see how this went.......

"Here's the deal..........our glorious Socialist movement is getting hung up all over the place....people aren't as stupid as we hoped.....we need something to scare the beejeezus out of them with to get them on OUR side......HEY! I got it! We tell them that the Earth is going to be a dried-up cinder and it's ALL THEIR FAULT! We have enough scientists on the payroll to get this done.............

Never mind the fact that it has happened before, and that it is happening all over the bleeding solar system, it MUST be caused by humans.

Now that we've convinced the idiots, we are poised to make our fortune in BS like carbon credits and other such ponzi-inspired charlatan games.

And if we keep screaming it loud enough, we will eventually drown out the real scientists and the truth will be what WE say it is......."


And the lemmings buy it, hook, line and sinker.

What a sad state of affairs.

So why didn't the prize go to someone researching alternative energy instead?

Has any of them had as high an impact as Al Gore? Nope.

Unlike global warming Peak Oil will cause war,

Climate change already has caused conflict, so it's much too late for you "unlike" nonsense. By the by, Peak Oil and climate change are connected. Now, I know how hard it is for you to get that - that things are connected - but do try. Just this once.

and a very nasty one when it hits, or when people realize it. Look at the way Russia is saber rattling. Sure Gore did some work on global warming, but at the end of the day it's just not that fucking important. Name me one war fought over climate change.

You still haven't read the Committee's press release, have you? Why, that would lead to you actually have to argue from something else than ignorance, and you can't have that.

Kinda makes you wonder though, I mean all of his message is doom and gloom, and then he does the same acts that is dooming us all to the gloom that he is preaching, ehhh you begin to wonder how much of a threat we're really in. I mean if the guy spreading the message doesn't seem to be too concern about it in his private life, then why should we?

Carbon offsets, FTW. The guy can't rely on sceduled airline trips when he's gotta be somewhere at a certain time and no airlines are flying then. Surely you've encountered that. It isn't like he flies the damn thing to the local supermarket, ffs.

It is a sad, sad day when bad science, manipulated data and proven-wrong conclusions garner such an award.

I remember a day when the Nobel actually meant something...........now all it seems to be is another political tool for the drooling loony left.

Wow. Someone noticed that temperatures are rising.

Unable to further their evil Socialist agendae any other way, I can see how this went.......

"Here's the deal..........our glorious Socialist movement is getting hung up all over the place....people aren't as stupid as we hoped.....we need something to scare the beejeezus out of them with to get them on OUR side......HEY! I got it! We tell them that the Earth is going to be a dried-up cinder and it's ALL THEIR FAULT! We have enough scientists on the payroll to get this done.............

Never mind the fact that it has happened before, and that it is happening all over the bleeding solar system, it MUST be caused by humans.

Now that we've convinced the idiots, we are poised to make our fortune in BS like carbon credits and other such ponzi-inspired charlatan games.

And if we keep screaming it loud enough, we will eventually drown out the real scientists and the truth will be what WE say it is......."


And the lemmings buy it, hook, line and sinker.

What a sad state of affairs.

Proof or paranoia.

Right, like one Ponzi scheme is any better than another. Energy companies rake in record profits (PROFITS, mind you, not income) and continue to soak the market for all they can get. You'd rather that? Fine. Please do not bitch when gas reaches $4/gal.

Hab' ich dir gesagt dass ich dich liebe? Soll ich?
Bitte nicht. Don't think the fresh glue will hold for another attempted heartbreak ;P

And is it really necessary for you to always link to utterly horrbile music in your sig that one can't get out of one's head nevertheless all day?
I've never heard you tell SoWiBi you love him, but as to whether or not you should tell him...well, that's up to you.

[/attempt to dispel a microscopic part of the "dumb American" myth, and no, I did not use a translator program or site]

You might as well display a certain amount of German knowledge, but you phail at NSG.

.... her! And his confessions have been as numerous as my ferocious, unashamed begs for them, I guess.

agendae

The plural of "agendum" is "agenda". I remember a day when people who tried to speak Latin actually could...

Name me one war fought over climate change. Just one. Since you're ignoring that request I take it to mean there haven't actually been any and you're talking out your ass, again.

Is it really so hard to read the press release? It's over at nobel.se - go ahead, prove that you can. You don't even have to read it in the original Norwegian.

Has any of them had as high an impact as Al Gore? Nope.



Climate change already has caused conflict, so it's much too late for you "unlike" nonsense. By the by, Peak Oil and climate change are connected. Now, I know how hard it is for you to get that - that things are connected - but do try. Just this once.



You still haven't read the Committee's press release, have you? Why, that would lead to you actually have to argue from something else than ignorance, and you can't have that.


Name me one war fought over climate change. Just one. Since you're ignoring that request I take it to mean there haven't actually been any and you're talking out your ass, again.

Bitte nicht. Don't think the fresh glue will hold for another attempted heartbreak ;P

And is it really necessary for you to always link to utterly horrbile music in your sig that one can't get out of one's head nevertheless all day?


You might as well display a certain amount of German knowledge, but you phail at NSG.

.... her! And his confessions have been as numerous as my ferocious, unashamed begs for them, I guess.

Ach! Das tut mir leid, fraeulein! Entschuldigung, mein' Amerikanischer keyboard habt kein' umlauten. Oh, hell, I botched that. Anyway, my apologies. I'd never seen a pronoun used for you in all my time on NSG.

Name me one war fought over climate change. Just one. Since you're ignoring that request I take it to mean there haven't actually been any and you're talking out your ass, again.

Sudan Civil War. Next?

Bitte nicht.

Schade, weil ich es wirklich tun wollte. *cringes*

Don't think the fresh glue will hold for another attempted heartbreak ;P

Ironic that it is when you write in English that you cause me the hardest difficulties to understand you.

The plural of "agendum" is "agenda". I remember a day when people who tried to speak Latin actually could...

Finally, proof in my hands that you lie about your age.

Is it really so hard to read the press release? It's over at nobel.se - go ahead, prove that you can. You don't even have to read it in the original Norwegian.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BAR20060122&articleId=1781
http://planetforlife.com/oilcrisis/oilreserves.html
http://pawss.hampshire.edu/topics/oil/index.html
http://www.peak-oil-news.info/cold-war-oil/


Remember kids, alternative energy isn't a priority. Global warming, that's worthy of a fucking peace prize!

Finally, proof in my hands that you lie about your age.

You needed proof for this public secret? Odd.

Remember kids, alternative energy isn't a priority. Global warming, that's worthy of a fucking peace prize!

Aww, you couldn't. Colour me unsurprised.

Carbon offsets, FTW. The guy can't rely on sceduled airline trips when he's gotta be somewhere at a certain time and no airlines are flying then. Surely you've encountered that. It isn't like he flies the damn thing to the local supermarket, ffs.

So he can buy his way out instead of actually sticking to his conviction because it's 'inconvenience', fantastic. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go pay attention to scientist and environmentalist who not only talk about global warming, but adjusted their lifestyle to try to prevent the doom and gloom, without buying carbon credits.

Aww, you couldn't. Colour me unsurprised.

Considering the Nobel Peace Center's URL to the announcement is "http:///" I doubt much you could either.

Sorry to break the bad news to ya, but it's way past that already at a station in Orlando, FL. $4.39 for regular.


That's odd. It's only about $3.00 up here.

Proof or paranoia.



Of what? My assertion that Humans have dip diddley squat of any real measure to do with the rising temperatures?



Right, like one Ponzi scheme is any better than another. Energy companies rake in record profits (PROFITS, mind you, not income) and continue to soak the market for all they can get. You'd rather that? Fine. Please do not bitch when gas reaches $4/gal.

Sorry to break the bad news to ya, but it's way past that already at a station in Orlando, FL. $4.39 for regular.

We all want out of this oil mess, so rather than invent blame for global warming, why not insist on a Manhattan Project level effort to get us all off of the stuff?

Show me the candidates that will do THAT and I don't care what party's flag they fly, I'll vote for them in a heartbeat. Hell, I'd even volunteer to help them get elected.

But they damn well better deliver...............

WTF is it with foreigners and their fetish for "Fräulein"? (Yes, I'm looking at both of you)

My fetish for it has to do with the -lein, and also because it's what they use in all the cool WWII flicks when the Germans talk.

Just wait till the day I'll write in Swedish, men det får anstå tills vidare.

Anstå! Oh, you're so cute, I could eat you. Almost out.

Ach! Das tut mir leid, Fraeulein! Entschuldigung, mein' Amerikanisches Keyboard habt keine Umlauten. Oh, hell, I botched that. Anyway, my apologies. I'd never seen a pronoun used for you in all my time on NSG.
WTF is it with foreigners and their fetish for "Fräulein"? (Yes, I'm looking at both of you)

And well, we established your blindness before already, no? ;P

Schade, weil ich es wirklich tun wollte. *cringes*
Allow me to just join the cringing, yes?

Ironic that it is when you write in English that you cause me the hardest difficulties to understand you.
Just wait till the day I'll write in Swedish, men det får anstå tills vidare.

Considering the Nobel Peace Center's URL to the announcement is "http:///" I doubt much you could either.

Something wrong with the official website where it is on the front page? There's your trouble with connections again...

Aww, you couldn't. Colour me unsurprised.

After fumbling through the Norwegian language version of the site I found the proper page and an English translation link.

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR 2007

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. 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.

Indications of changes in the earth’s future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

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 one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world’s leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.

Oslo, 12 October 2007

Now, I'm not seeing where any war, conflict, or anything more serious than an internet whine-fest or two has been fought over climate change, yet there have been dozens of wars over oil, which will only intensify in coming years, so remind me again, WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH PEACE? Nothing? Cool, kind of the point I was driving at.

The US has not had too much to be proud of on the international scene during the past 7 years. Perhaps you could put politics aside for a moment and reflect on the significant contribution Gore has made to improve the health of the world's environment?

Agreed. I think his concern for both the well being of the environment, but also the well being of human kind, and his efforts to spread this information around the world shows him to be a far more exceptional individual than any of us would have thought a mere seven years ago.

After fumbling through the Norwegian language version of the site I found the proper page and an English translation link.

Instead of just clicking the link to the English text on the front page of nobel.se? Not very perceptive...

Now, I'm not seeing where any war, conflict, or anything more serious

So I guess you lived under a rock for the last half decade and haven't heard of this little place called Darfur where they this have conflict the causes of which lie in the combination of decades of drought, overpopulation and desertification causing migration and displacement just like the Norwegian Nobel Committee wrote. No, no - you won't have it any other way except arguing from this your favourite position of wilful ignorance.

Something wrong with the official website where it is on the front page? There's your trouble with connections again...

See this statement makes me wonder if you've even looked at their website. I'm guessing you haven't.

Anstå! Oh, you're so cute, I could eat you. Almost out.

Alla skulle tjäna på en sådan lösning.

... jag skämtade bara! *flees*

See this statement makes me wonder if you've even looked at their website. I'm guessing you haven't.

http://www.nobel.se <- Amazing, isn't it? Huge font about the 2007 Peace Prize, right there on the front page. Like I directed you to posts and posts ago. But reading wasn't your forté...

Alla skulle tjäna på en sådan lösning.

Pekuniärt, förmodligen.

... jag skämtade bara! *flees*

Spring du, bara! Skrattar bäst som skrattar sist.

Just to make clear my first post. I do know that global warming has effects on conflict but...

...Gore?

There are more deserving people out there actually working on solutions and not just raising awareness. It could have been given to anyone working to provide sustainable energy, which is a hundred times better than just raising awareness. It could have been given to people who greatly promoted recycling and actually got people to recycle their waste.

But to give it to Gore just kinda goes to show that only popular people are eligible for the prize. You might have set everything in motion for everyone to recycle all their products, but if you don't make any airtime, sucks to be you.

Just to make clear my first post. I do know that global warming has effects on conflict but...

...Gore?

There are more deserving people out there actually working on solutions and not just raising awareness. It could have been given to anyone working to provide sustainable energy, which is a hundred times better than just raising awareness. It could have been given to people who greatly promoted recycling and actually got people to recycle their waste.

But to give it to Gore just kinda goes to show that only popular people are eligible for the prize. You might have set everything in motion for everyone to recycle all their products, but if you don't make any airtime, sucks to be you.

Atleast they didn't give it to Captain Planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Planet), though he's likely had more to do with world peace.

Pekuniärt, förmodligen.
Well, jag är yrkeskvinna.

Spring du, bara! Skrattar bäst som skrattar sist.

Han utnyttjade sitt övertag; matchen slutade 1-0 i infödd svensk favör.

Well, jag är yrkeskvinna.

Och ditt yrke utövar du så väl och grundligt.

Han utnyttjade sitt övertag; matchen slutade 1-0 i infödd svensk favör.

Knulla mig! Knulla mig nu! Vaddå? Ord som favör gör mig alldeles svag i knäna.

Now, I'm not seeing where any war, conflict, or anything more serious than an internet whine-fest or two has been fought over climate change, yet there have been dozens of wars over oil, which will only intensify in coming years, so remind me again, WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH PEACE?

There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

There you go.

Also, take a look at Darfur as a possible example of an active conflict fuled by global climate change.

I'm glad he won.

I'm glad he won because of all the Neo-con pundits who are going to have twitchy conniption fits over the next few weeks. I will be watching popcorn in hand. :)

I still wouldn't vote for him. :p

There you go.

Also, take a look at Darfur as a possible example of an active conflict fuled by global climate change.

May have, again, there have been dozens of wars due to oil. Why are the vast numbers of researchers into alternative fuels not given peace prizes? I'm guessing it's 'cause Al Gore makes a lot of noise. Not saying he's not doing a good job, even if his personal habits need some work, but giving him a peace prize is at best a stretch and at worst a slap in the face for everyone who's working towards peace.

There you go.

Also, take a look at Darfur as a possible example of an active conflict fuled by global climate change.

Um Darfur deals more with religion :rolleyes:

There are more deserving people out there actually working on solutions and not just raising awareness. It could have been given to anyone working to provide sustainable energy, which is a hundred times better than just raising awareness. It could have been given to people who greatly promoted recycling and actually got people to recycle their waste.
Working on practical solutions won't mean a thing if the world don't want to use them. Raising awareness might actually be the most important part to solve this problem - since the deniers have been so strong, and the economic interests find themselves (in the short term) on the side of the ones who wish to do nothing.


But to give it to Gore just kinda goes to show that only popular people are eligible for the prize. You might have set everything in motion for everyone to recycle all their products, but if you don't make any airtime, sucks to be you.

You were familiar with Mahammad Yunus, you say? I hadn't heard of Grameen Bank until they got the award.

This is spectacular. The best part is the NS Conservative Goon Squad (i.e. Corny, Khagy, Myrmy, etc.) are again demonstrating their typical persecution complex. It's as if they feel personally shit on every time someone on the opposite side of their political spectrum get accolades. What's up with that? Not to say itn's not funny all the same. But, can one of them please explain it to me?

Um Darfur deals more with religion :rolleyes:

And you say things like these and still expect us to believe you're a "historian"? It still hasn't gotten old.

You were familiar with Mahammad Yunus, you say? I hadn't heard of Grameen Bank until they got the award.

I wasn't taking history into account with regards to that statement.

May have, again, there have been dozens of wars due to oil. Why are the vast numbers of researchers into alternative fuels not given peace prizes? I'm guessing it's 'cause Al Gore makes a lot of noise. Not saying he's not doing a good job, even if his personal habits need some work, but giving him a peace prize is at best a stretch and at worst a slap in the face for everyone who's working towards peace.

Not at all. Which is why he shared the price with the IPCC. Also, see my post above. Crating awareness is important, and the researchers into alternative fuels won't matter if nobody knows there is a problem.

And of course Gore got the prize because he makes a lot of noise. Heavens, that's the reason they give for giving him a part of it!

By the by, just because there might be other worthy candidates (I would have preferred someone more directly connected to promoting human rights) doesn't mean that it was not right to award it to Gore and the IPCC.

Och ditt yrke utövar du så väl och grundligt.
Of course, that's my German heritage shining through.

Knulla mig! Knulla mig nu!
Tempting, but I'll pass.
Vaddå? Ord som favör gör mig alldeles svag i knäna.

I recomment non-sentient means of support (the couch is a personal favorite) and an orthopaedist in due time if your problem persists.

About as much as microfinance, which - according to the historical record - was found worthy of the award last year.

Oh I dont know about this. Its my opinion micro financing takes a far more proactive role in directly effecting peoples lives, and consequently the stability in impoverished regions (which are more prone to civil disruption) than Al Gores environment documentary.

The only argument that can be made for Gore is that his efforts MAY prevent wars that MIGHT happen in the future because of global warming. Micro financing IS actually affecting lives in real time and is far less theoretical. We are actually able to measure the value and success of micro financing vs Gores awareness effort.

Maybe he MIGHT deserve this award 10 years down the line if we see that his awareness efforts actually did have a substantial effect on raising awareness that leads to the decrease or prevention of global warming. But as of now... its just a campaign effort, whose effects are largely immeasurable.

I wasn't taking history into account with regards to that statement.

Very clearly not.

Are you saying that religion is the only factor in this conflict?

No but it is the majority factor.

If so you're wrong. And climate change may be another prominent factor.

Based on?

And of course, the peace prize lost all credibility when they gave one to that war mongering fuck Nelson Mandela.

Wait, what?

Um Darfur deals more with religion :rolleyes:

Are you saying that religion is the only factor in this conflict?

If so you're wrong. And climate change may be another prominent factor.

Of course, that's my German heritage shining through.

I'd've guessed more the Jewish one, but I guess you being a semi-shiksa and all must not be underestimated.

Tempting, but I'll pass.

Fegis.

I recomment non-sentient means of support (the couch is a personal favorite) and an orthopaedist in due time if your problem persists.

This lady did not protest, so why you gave me advice is an enigma.

I wasn't taking history into account with regards to that statement.

What was the purpose of the statement than (other than pure conjecture). If your not basing such a claim on the past history of the prize, isn't what you said meaningless since history actually contradicts you ?

you lose :D

And how does that contradict anything I've said?



From http://www.washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101200364_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007101102222)

So based on what?

I also like to know how this dude classifies a "climate war" as.

It must be a proud day for the Gore family -- to finally be in the company of such immortal greats as Yasser Arafat...

You mean the same Yassir Arafat who won the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with Yitzhak Rabin for what was then a staggering breakthrough in Middle East Peace?

This was of course just before the Israeli People made their true opinion on the peace deal internationally known in the form of Yigal Amir shooting Rabin point-blank.

Nice try at sour grapes. You almost looked like New Mitanni for a second there.

:p

No but it is the majority factor.
And how does that contradict anything I've said?


Based on?
Jan Egeland, a former U.N. undersecretary for humanitarian affairs and now a peace mediator and director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, said the world's initial "climate wars" were already being fought in parts of Africa where a lack of water has brought farmers, nomads and animal herders into conflict.
From http://www.washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101200364_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007101102222)

A really great video on the subject.

It's kind of a cost/benefit analysis of the situation

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI)

WARNING: For other USians, it's almost ten full minutes long!

Are you saying that religion is the only factor in this conflict?

If so you're wrong. And climate change may be another prominent factor.

maybe ? or IS ? See you can't even clearly identify HOW MUCH of a factor climate change is playing in this conflict. That would be because few conflicts are so cut and dry. To honor him with an award that doesn't have a direct, measurable, or even immediate effect on conflict or peace seems inappropriate.

You're honestly going to display your ignorance of context and sit there and seriously claim that global climate change, which has already engendered resource conflicts and proved to be a threat to international stability

How the heck has it done that?

Maybe he MIGHT deserve this award 10 years down the line if we see that his awareness efforts actually did have a substantial effect on raising awareness that leads to the decrease or prevention of global warming. But as of now... its just a campaign effort, whose effects are largely immeasurable
I was throwing this take on it around earlier too, but I've decided that (for me) it doesn't matter. If the award, and the publicity/air of legitimacy that goes with it, leads to a wider acceptance of the scientific consensus on climate change then the IPCC (and, by association, Gore) are worthy recipients.

How the heck has it done that?

Learn to read threads before posting to them, please.

What was the purpose of the statement than (other than pure conjecture). If your not basing such a claim on the past history of the prize, isn't what you said meaningless since history actually contradicts you ?

you lose :D

I made a conjecture regarding the immediate situation :P of course I am going to lose.

How the heck has it done that?

Other than


Increasing the frequency and strength of hurricanes
Melting permafrost in places such as Alaska
Gradually killing off the Great Barrier Reef
Melt polar ice caps and raise sea levels, which also puts even more strain on species like polar bears
Forcing people like Inuits and Tuvaluans to leave their long-time homes


nope, global warming didn't actually do a damn thing at all. More liberal conspiracy, this talk of climate change.

How the heck has it done that?

He's never said, and when pressed he'll insult you and claim you're illiterate for not finding his assertions to be true without question.

Other than


Increasing the frequency and strength of hurricanes
Melting permafrost in places such as Alaska
Gradually killing off the Great Barrier Reef
Melt polar ice caps and raise sea levels, which also puts even more strain on species like polar bears
Forcing people like Inuits and Tuvaluans to leave their long-time homes


nope, global warming didn't actually do a damn thing at all. More liberal conspiracy, this talk of climate change.

Reaaally not what he asked. But kudos on the condescension.

Learn to read threads before posting to them, please.

I've aready read the entire thread and nobody has provided support for the statement that "global climate change......has already engendered resource conflicts and proved to be a threat to international stability."

The best people seem to be able to come up with is the claim that Darfur is MAYBE partially due to some sort of climate change (just like the American Civil War was about tariff policy, in the minds of neo-confederates).

Others have said that there are droughts in Africa causing conflicts between farmers and herdsmen. I guess droughts have never occurred in Africa in the past? Global warming must be the cause :rolleyes:

I can't say I really agree with the Nobel committee's decision. I believe there are people more deserving of the Peace Prize then a politician who found a cause and ran with it.

I've aready read the entire thread and nobody has provided support for the statement that "global climate change......has already engendered resource conflicts and proved to be a threat to international stability."

You see the latter part of that sentence makes me strongly doubt the former. So, here I am, doubting you and dismissing you.

I was throwing this take on it around earlier too, but I've decided that (for me) it doesn't matter. If the award, and the publicity/air of legitimacy that goes with it, leads to a wider acceptance of the scientific consensus on climate change then the IPCC (and, by association, Gore) are worthy recipients.

I believe though, because it is merely an awareness campaign, the effects are short lived and negligible. The attention of the public at large is often fickle, and while for now he maybe making traction, some different overriding incident may easily distract the public in the near future. Yes over the long term such campaigns can have a Hugh impact on society (such as the anti tobacco, or war on drugs campaigns), but look at how long they have taken to bare fruit. The anti tobacco movement began in the 60's, and no laws sprung up until the 90's!

I think all this shows is that the committee, much like the public at large are just being distracted by the "mob mentality". If everyone else likes it, we should like it too. I think its WAY to early for this to have happened.

I can't say I really agree with the Nobel committee's decision. I believe there are people more deserving of the Peace Prize then a politician who found a cause and ran with it.

They should change the name to the Webb Ellis prize.

Other than


Increasing the frequency and strength of hurricanes
Melting permafrost in places such as Alaska
Gradually killing off the Great Barrier Reef
Melt polar ice caps and raise sea levels, which also puts even more strain on species like polar bears
Forcing people like Inuits and Tuvaluans to leave their long-time homes


nope, global warming didn't actually do a damn thing at all. More liberal conspiracy, this talk of climate change.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that all of these things (a) have/are happening, and (b) are caused by global warming, what does that have to do with the claim that:

global climate change.......has already engendered resource conflicts and proved to be a threat to international stability

We're talking about the frackin' Nobel Peace Prize, which used to be given out for things like brokering the peace treaty for the Russo-Japanese War. These days, it seems like it's nothing more than a way for the international left to focus on its cause de jure (such as this year's prize) or to make a pathetic jab at American foreign policy (by giving it to that doddering idiot Jimmah Carter).

So based on what?
More droughts, natural disasters, conflicts over resources such as water and fuel... They fight over lands - the nomads want their livestock to graze, the farmers wants to grown produce. When less land is fertile, less areas are suitable for this and fighting commences. As we've seen in Sudan, for example.

I also like to know how this dude classifies a "climate war" as.

Or ask the dude yourself. Send a mail to internett@nupi.no

Also, here's a link touching on the issue:
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Natural_disasters_more_destructive__08282007.html

maybe ? or IS ? See you can't even clearly identify HOW MUCH of a factor climate change is playing in this conflict. That would be because few conflicts are so cut and dry. To honor him with an award that doesn't have a direct, measurable, or even immediate effect on conflict or peace seems inappropriate.
I guess it was inappropriate to award the prize to Mother Theresa, Shirin Ebadi, and Jody Williams too. After all, they didn't have a a direct, measurable, or even immediate effect on conflict or peace.

Come to think of it, neither has Aung San Suu Kyi, since she's been under house arrest since she got it.

But then again, the terms for being awarded the prize isn't what you'd like them to be, so...

Reaaally not what he asked. But kudos on the condescension.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that all of these things (a) have/are happening, and (b) are caused by global warming, what does that have to do with the claim that:

global climate change.......has already engendered resource conflicts and proved to be a threat to international stability

One effect is that as sea level rises, the resulting exodus of quite a few groups of people is going to add to political tension to places that have enough of an issue with immigration legal and otherwise (Australia comes foremost to mind here as one example).

Killing off the Great Barrier Reef will kill a good portion of Australia's tourism economy. Won't necessarily be a deathblow, but it will be King Arthur lopping off the Black Knight's arm grievious wound.

Increased hurricane activity and strength will lead to more disasters, and depending on the location more than one Post Katrina New Orleans style brouhahas may or may not erupt.

Endangered Species are always a touchy issue in most places.

The permafrost melting in Alaska is going to really muck up the terrain there, which will not only mess with the native wildlife, but it'll no doubt screw with the Pipeline and of course, oil is always a touchy issue in most places- especially the United States. If the flow of oil from the Pipeline is fucked with, who knows what the government will do?

You see the latter part of that sentence makes me strongly doubt the former. So, here I am, doubting you and dismissing you.

You "forgot" the rest of my post, where I talked about Darfur etc.

So, since you seem unwilling/incapable of providing any concrete examples for the claim that "global climate change......has already engendered resource conflicts and proved to be a threat to international stability," I'm going to go ahead and dismiss you right back.

Geez, now I know why my Danish in-laws make fun of Swedes.....

You "forgot" the rest of my post, where I talked about Darfur etc.

So, since you seem unwilling/incapable of providing any concrete examples for the claim that "global climate change......has already engendered resource conflicts and proved to be a threat to international stability," I'm going to go ahead and dismiss you right back.

Geez, now I know why my Danish in-laws make fun of Swedes.....

They're not all like that. Fass just has nothing to back up his assertions so he falls back to his old standard of just insulting people until they get so aggravated they give up even replying to him so he can claim a "win".

Long story short, the only, maybe, conflict that involves, sorta, climate change, kinda, is Darfur, theoretically. While there are dozens of battles annually over oil, gas, and other fossil fuels. Al Gore got the prize 'cause he's famous, he's loud, and he's got a new movie out. There is a long list of people more deserving, but oh well.

Perhaps it just means that it was tough to find anyone who has made a more direct impact on peace since the last award.

Surely there's someone who has had a more direct impact than this. I mean it's tenuous at best connecting Gore to peace. Now during his tenure as VP maybe, but as I recall he really didn't do much.

Perhaps it just means that it was tough to find anyone who has made a more direct impact on peace since the last award.

I believe though, because it is merely an awareness campaign, the effects are short lived and negligible. The attention of the public at large is often fickle, and while for now he maybe making traction, some different overriding incident may easily distract the public in the near future. Yes over the long term such campaigns can have a Hugh impact on society (such as the anti tobacco, or war on drugs campaigns), but look at how long they have taken to bare fruit. The anti tobacco movement began in the 60's, and no laws sprung up until the 90's!

I think all this shows is that the committee, much like the public at large are just being distracted by the "mob mentality". If everyone else likes it, we should like it too. I think its WAY to early for this to have happened.
Perhaps the hope of the committee is that, by bestowing the award, the awareness campaign's momentum can be maintained or perhaps even increased. As for it being a decision driven by 'mob mentality', you may well be right... it does seem to be a pretty populist decision. In this case, however, the 'mob' has some pretty solid proof on their side (certainly for the climatic change aspect of the campaign- the claims for already extant resource conflicts are a little more nebulous, though compelling).

Just because a large number of people believe a thing does not mean that it is not true (nor does it make it true, which is where the proof that brought about the general scientific consensus comes in).

One effect is that as sea level rises, the resulting exodus of quite a few groups of people is going to add to political tension to places that have enough of an issue with immigration legal and otherwise (Australia comes foremost to mind here as one example).

A rise of a few feet in sea levels is going to do this? These changes are going to take centuries to come to pass. People will adapt. We're not talking about sea levels rising dozens of feet overnight.

Increased hurricane activity and strength will lead to more disasters, and depending on the location it more than one Post Katrina New Orleans style brouhahas may or may not erupt.

I'm scratching my head here. Katrina was a cockup on the part of city, state and federal government. But what does it have to do as a threat to peace?

Endangered Species are always a touchy issue in most places.

Whooping cranes are going to raise armies and wage war against humanity?

The permafrost melting in Alaska is going to really muck up the terrain there, which will not only mess with the native wildlife, but it'll no doubt screw with the Pipeline and of course, oil is always a touchy issue in most places.

If the permafrost melts, it will make oil exploration and the installation of pipelines easier. If the temperature goes up, large swathes of Canada, Alaska and Siberia will actually become liveable. If the Northwest Passage opens year round, trade with Asia will become easier. How will any of these positives actually be a danger to international peace and stability?

Killing off the Great Barrier Reef will kill a good portion of Australias tourism economy. Won't necessarily be a deathblow, but it will be King Arthur lopping off the Black Knight's arm grievious wound.

Some quick internet research shows that about 5.5 million foreign tourists visit Australia each year, while there are 1.6 million visits to the Great Barrier Reef National Park. So, even if 50% of the visitors to the Great Barrier Reef are foreign (which is probably high), and none of them would have come to Australia if it wasn't for the reef (unlikely), then Oz only loses 800,000 tourists. Is this likely to lead to civil war and conflict in Australia?

I guess it was inappropriate to award the prize to Mother Theresa, Shirin Ebadi, and Jody Williams too. After all, they didn't have a a direct, measurable, or even immediate effect on conflict or peace.

Come to think of it, neither has Aung San Suu Kyi, since she's been under house arrest since she got it.

But then again, the terms for being awarded the prize isn't what you'd like them to be, so...

It's hard for me to discern your logic as you compare a man who is running an ad campaign to raise awareness of climate change to people who have created organizations which directly effect the lives of the impoverished, the banning of land mines, and the promotion of human rights while speaking against the use of arms (Human rights cannot "be imposed with cluster bombs"; Shirin Ebadi)

Each of the people you mentioned actually did have direct, measurable, and immediate impacts against civil conflict and social peace efforts. We still have no idea what impact if any Gore's campaign will have on climate change.

If you were making the comparison for say mother Theresa when she first began her mission ... then I would agree, the award would be inappropriate. But today we are able to see the extent of the effect the international organization she founded has played. This is why she is deserved of such an award. We can see her actions promoted peace. We cant say the same for Gore.

ENVIRONMENTAL REFUGEES:
AN EMERGENT SECURITY ISSUE (http://www.osce.org/documents/eea/2005/05/14488_en.pdf)
All in all, the issue of environmental refugees promises to rank as one of the foremost human crises of our times. To date, however, it has been viewed as a peripheral concern, a kind of aberration from the normal order of things--even though it is an outward manifestation of profound deprivation and despair. While it derives primarily from environmental problems, it generates myriad problems of political, social and economic sorts. As such, it could readily become a cause of turmoil and confrontation, leading to conflict and violence. Yet as the problem becomes more pressing, our policy responses fall ever-further short of measuring up to the challenge.To repeat a pivotal point: environmental refugees have still to be officially recognized as a problem at all.

An example of one report...

Perhaps the hope of the committee is that, by bestowing the award, the awareness campaign's momentum can be maintained or perhaps even increased. As for it being a decision driven by 'mob mentality', you may well be right... it does seem to be a pretty populist decision. In this case, however, the 'mob' has some pretty solid proof on their side (certainly for the climatic change aspect of the campaign- the claims for already extant resource conflicts are a little more nebulous, though compelling).

Just because a large number of people believe a thing does not mean that it is not true (nor does it make it true, which is where the proof that brought about the general scientific consensus comes in).

I thought the award was put in place to honor the accomplishments which were already acheived, not actually try to make those possible accomplishments more realistic. All we have so far is a successful documentary... You can't even say how effective Gores statements have been in raising awareness yet.

Is that talking point made to make you sound as ignorant about history and the reasons for why Arafat got to share the prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres as it does, or what?
Does the fact that the award for greatest peace efforts was given to a terrorist simply ring hollow with you?If so, how about the question: What do efforts made on behalf of a still much debated theory by a man who flies on a Gulfstream, is escorted by a team of SUVs everywhere he goes, and operates a zinc mine on his property while running a $30,000 a month energy bill have to do with world peace?

I'll readily concede that my knowledge about both the Peace Prize and Al Gore's engagement against global warming and their respective history converge against zero, but it amazes me that they chose to honor such a 'recent' activity (as I understand it), different from the long times the 'scientific' discoveries usually have to prove themselves before being suchly recognized.

Not that recent, really - Gore has been working to draw attention to this issue throughout his entire political career. People have just started to listen recently.

I thought the award was put in place to honor the accomplishments which were already acheived, not actually try to make those possible accomplishments more realistic. All we have so far is a successful documentary... You can't even say how effective Gores statements have been in raising awareness yet.
I can't, and I haven't. The committee, however, are obviously satisfied that awareness has been dramatically raised and, at the end of the day, it's them that has made the decision.

Whether it turns out to be a good decision or not is a question for the future, but I submit that the fact that the movie is still featured regularly in news bulletins and all over the Internet (and that was prior to the award) supports the idea that it is something that a huge number of people are aware of and that therefore, by definition, it has raised awareness to a degree.

*snip*

"But he was blinded by the right! Revved up like a Bush another runner in the night..."

[/Manfred Mann][/Bruce Springstien]

It's hard for me to discern your logic as you compare a man who is running an ad campaign to raise awareness of climate change to people who have created organizations which directly effect the lives of the impoverished, the banning of land mines, and the promotion of human rights while speaking against the use of arms (Human rights cannot "be imposed with cluster bombs"; Shirin Ebadi)

Each of the people you mentioned actually did have direct, measurable, and immediate impacts against civil conflict and social peace efforts.
I disagree. They did not, as far as I can see. For example does not the land mine ban have a direct, measurable, or even immediate effect on conflict or peace, but it is a good measure to reduce suffering after a war. Same with the improving of the lives of the impoverished; I'd like to see you measure that though. But their messages were important, and they did work for fraternity between nations and for the benefit of mankind.

We still have no idea what impact if any Gore's campaign will have on climate change.
And we don't need to. As with the Arafat/Rabin/Peres award, it's just the work, the struggle, that's important. No actual results are required.


If you were making the comparison for say mother Theresa when she first began her mission ... then I would agree, the award would be inappropriate. But today we are able to see the extent of the effect the international organization she founded has played. This is why she is deserved of such an award. We can see her actions promoted peace. We cant say the same for Gore.
So with Mother Theresa it's OK with hindsight, but not with Gore? I see...

I thought the award was put in place to honor the accomplishments which were already acheived, not actually try to make those possible accomplishments more realistic. All we have so far is a successful documentary... You can't even say how effective Gores statements have been in raising awareness yet.

Nobel's Will and the Peace Prize

When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize for peace was to be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses." The prize was to be awarded "by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting."
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/lundestad-review/index.html

No results are required.

A rise of a few feet in sea levels is going to do this? These changes are going to take centuries to come to pass. People will adapt. We're not talking about sea levels rising dozens of feet overnight.

Tell that to the Tuvaluans. Please. I insist.

And Gravlen posted a link to a report on Environmental Refugees that's interesting.

I'm scratching my head here. Katrina was a cockup on the part of city, state and federal government. But what does it have to do as a threat to peace?

Imagine a bunch of Katrinas happening more often all across the globe with bigger impacts due to being strengthened by warming ocean temperatures. Now picture ill-prepared nationstates hit by them. Now picture post-Katrina lawlessness, exploitation and add in refugee flights to neighboring regions or even countries.

Whooping cranes are going to raise armies and wage war against humanity?

No, but people passing laws restricting access to certain lands that are known to be the last refuge spots of whooping cranes are going to create a real huge "resource conflict" like the whole Spotted Owl incident did a while back.

If the permafrost melts, it will make oil exploration and the installation of pipelines easier. If the temperature goes up, large swathes of Canada, Alaska and Siberia will actually become liveable. If the Northwest Passage opens year round, trade with Asia will become easier. How will any of these positives actually be a danger to international peace and stability?

Even when the permafrost underneath the soil the Pipelines are build in or on melts and the ground achieves varying degrees of swampiness? Keeping the pipelines in a stable and working order is going to be costly for one, which could reflect in increasing petroleum prices which will affect quite a lot of industries that rely on petroleum products.

Two, you're marginalizing the importance and potence of ecological disruption in those areas. Creatures used to living in winter climates will have their lifecycles thrown off, and while they may not be necessarily killed off their disrupted behavior patterns will inevitably come to a crossroads with humans. Especially if people start moving into those "liveable" regions.

Siberia becoming open to development. Do we really need to give more incentives to Uncle Vlad to behave naughty?

Some quick internet research shows that about 5.5 million foreign tourists visit Australia each year, while there are 1.6 million visits to the Great Barrier Reef National Park. So, even if 50% of the visitors to the Great Barrier Reef are foreign (which is probably high), and none of them would have come to Australia if it wasn't for the reef (unlikely), then Oz only loses 800,000 tourists. Is this likely to lead to civil war and conflict in Australia?

The Great Barrier Reef generates income of AU$5.8 billion annually. Not only from tourism, but also from its recreational and fishing industry which is based around there. If the coral reefs are killed off, that's unbalance the ecology that's established around it. Not only making it unattractive to foreign tourists, but also harming the fishing industry and possibly increasing the hazard of engaging in maritime recreation around there.

Name a country than can lose an equivalent of AU$5.8 billion a year in revenues and not break a sweat.

Does the fact that the award for greatest peace efforts was given to a terrorist simply ring hollow with you?

Yes, since you claiming him a terrorist has no bearing on why he was given the prize along with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres: The Oslo Accords and their follow-up. You don't need to be a Mother Theresa (*spits on that vile woman's grave*) to be awarded the prize - you need to do something the prize can be awarded for. Arafat, Rabin and Peres did do just such a thing. As did the IPCC and Al Gore. As did, unfortunately, Mother Theresa.

What do efforts made on behalf of a still much debated theory

It's not a "still much debated theory", no matter what Fox News tells you and some in the USA would like to fool you into believing, and the rest of your post has already been dealt with.

He's never said, and when pressed he'll insult you and claim you're illiterate for not finding his assertions to be true without question.

That's a true statement

More droughts, natural disasters, conflicts over resources such as water and fuel...

Um Gravelin? Conflicts over resources have been occuring over many thousands of years.

They fight over lands - the nomads want their livestock to graze, the farmers wants to grown produce.

Again...been going on longer than the debate on global warming.

When less land is fertile, less areas are suitable for this and fighting commences. As we've seen in Sudan, for example.

Still not seeing that it is connected with global warming.

At the time Arafat shared the award, people thought he was a peacemaker. We were wrong. The assassination of Rabin didn't help either.

Climate change has the potential to cause a lot of fighting - for water, fertile land, or even any land. Drought caused by climate change triggered the conflict in Darfur - Africans moved into Arab lands since their own lands had become desert, the Arabs fought back, and the rest is history. There is tension over water resources in the Middle East.

and I'm curious as to how his personal habits invalidates his message? It well might make him a hypocrite a bit, but does not disprove anything he says.

Because if you can't trust the messenger, you must question his message.

I disagree. They did not, as far as I can see. For example does not the land mine ban have a direct, measurable, or even immediate effect on conflict or peace, but it is a good measure to reduce suffering after a war. Same with the improving of the lives of the impoverished; I'd like to see you measure that though. But their messages were important, and they did work for fraternity between nations and for the benefit of mankind.

In the case of banning land mines, I think few other issues could have more relevance than the effort to eliminate arms (in whatever form) from conflict in terms of promoting peace and combating conflict. Would you also argue banning necular weapons would have no impact on promoting peace ?

Fighting for human rights again, could possibly be no more relvant to the issue of promoting social peace. As well with improving the lives of the impoverish (though this is not nearly the extent of the international organization which Mother Theresa founded). Can you not see the direct link between quality of life (or lack there of) and social strife? Where do you think suicide bombers come from ? (impoverished, uneducated, vulnerable individuals)

So with Mother Theresa it's OK with hindsight, but not with Gore? I see...

absolutely! Because through hindsight, we are able to see that their effort produced meaningful results. I could go out now and make a struggle to cure all world hunger. But if my efforts all result in utter failure, should I still be considered for the nobel peace prize, cause I tried "real hard"?

There are countless people who engage in very nobel activities, but its the reults from those efforts which set them apart from one another.

I'm not saying Gores efforts are not notiable, or even nessesary... simply that time will better reveal if his efforts, his struggle is worthy to be placed among the likes of Mother Theresa (or the other selfless people who have made such strides for humanity) !

This is spectacular. The best part is the NS Conservative Goon Squad (i.e. Corny, Khagy, Myrmy, etc.) are again demonstrating their typical persecution complex. It's as if they feel personally shit on every time someone on the opposite side of their political spectrum get accolades. What's up with that? Not to say itn's not funny all the same. But, can one of them please explain it to me?

well, speaking as a historian...

absolutely! Because through hindsight, we are able to see that their effort produced meaningful results. I could go out now and make a struggle to cure all world hunger. But if my efforts all result in utter failure, should I still be considered for the nobel peace prize, cause I tried "real hard"?

Based on the standards articulated by the nobel prize committee, who are the people who get to decide....yes.

Which is the point. This is a private award. They can set their standards and requirements however the fuck they want to. Arguing that somebody should not get an award because you disagree with the standards the award givers decide is...stupid.

It's not your prize to give out. You should be considered for the nobel prize if you meet the standards the givers of the prize feel appropriate.

You don't like their standards? make your own damned award.

If in your struggle to raise awareness of world hunger you had garnered a lot of attention to the problem leading to large groups of people becoming very interested in finding solutions, then I'd give you lots of credit toward ending world hunger.

Based on the standards articulated by the nobel prize committee, who are the people who get to decide....yes.

And we are free to point out the foolishness of their decisions.

Which is the point. This is a private award. They can set their standards and requirements however the fuck they want to. Arguing that somebody should not get an award because you disagree with the standards the award givers decide is...stupid.

Not at all. If I call an award the "New Potomac Prize for Animal Husbandry," then give it to someone for their work in the field of space exploration, you'd be right to look at me kind of funny. Same thing here- the Nobel Peace Prize should have something to do with promoting international peace. The Nobel committe is free to award it however they want, of course, but we can point out that the award makes no sense.

Not at all. If I call an award the "New Potomac Prize for Animal Husbandry," then give it to someone for their work in the field of space exploration, you'd be right to look at me kind of funny. Same thing here- the Nobel Peace Prize should have something to do with promoting international peace. The Nobel committe is free to award it however they want, of course, but we can point out that the award makes no sense.

The problem being, under their opinion, Gore's actions promote peace, because they raise awareness of enviornmental concerns which helps to slow or halt enviornmental damage, which leads to more peaceful conditions globally.

Now you can disagree whether this is a true impact on peace, but they have articulated a clear (in their opinion) link between his actions, and the promotion of increased global peace.

Something you haven't done in connecting space exploration to animal husbantry.

To discuss whether he "deserves" it or not is foolish. It's a private award. It is deserved by those who the committee chooses to give it to. He got it, so by definition, he must deserve it. You are free to disagree, but then again, none of our opinions to that fact are relevant as to whether he deserved it or not.

They articulated what they believe to be a connection between his actions and the increase in global peace, and as such gave him a peace prize.

The planet is getting warmer.

So is every other planet in our solar system.

Humans have bugger all to do with it getting warmer.

There's bugger all we can do about it.

Our burning of fossil fuels has had such a miniscule impact on the whole equation that if every country were to stop using the stuff this very afternoon, you STILL wouldn't see any measurable difference in the temperature trends.

They go up, they go down. They do this all by themselves. It's a natural cycle that is so far removed from anything puny humans do it is laughable.

Not a single thing Al Gore has done merits this award any more than his phony Oscar. It is just a Socialist suck-fest and preying on the fears of the ignorant.

The Norse used to farm Greenland a long time ago. They will do it again and again as the millennia pass. SUVs and factories don't enter into it.

Enough of the lies and distortion. The REAL threat of oil is our dependence and reliance on other nations at the risk of our National Security.

Why aren't they beating THAT drum? Why make up lies, distort facts and mislead the masses when a perfectly good argument is so readily available?

Hell, I'd even vote for Al if he'd show the bollocks and stop lying. Can't ANY of them tell the truth anymore?

Based on the standards articulated by the nobel prize committee, who are the people who get to decide....yes.

Which is the point. This is a private award. They can set their standards and requirements however the fuck they want to. Arguing that somebody should not get an award because you disagree with the standards the award givers decide is...stupid.

It's not your prize to give out. You should be considered for the nobel prize if you meet the standards the givers of the prize feel appropriate.

You don't like their standards? make your own damned award.

I'd imagine the conservatives would award people who worked actively against peace.

But then they'd pick someone like Al Gore. :p

You will never be able to compare Al Gore to Mother Theresa in my book!

I would hope not. Al Gore is a decent human being. Mother Theresa did things I would consider barbaric and monsterous.

I would never compare Al Gore to Mother Theresa. I have far too much respect for Al Gore.

Based on the standards articulated by the nobel prize committee, who are the people who get to decide....yes.

Which is the point. This is a private award. They can set their standards and requirements however the fuck they want to. Arguing that somebody should not get an award because you disagree with the standards the award givers decide is...stupid.

It's not your prize to give out. You should be considered for the nobel prize if you meet the standards the givers of the prize feel appropriate.

You don't like their standards? make your own damned award.

No I definatly understand that point :']

Im just saying....... he hasn't done a damn thing for peace in my opinion yet :'P. So screw that whole "oooo peace prize winner". Whatever!

You will never be able to compare Al Gore to Mother Theresa in my book!

WHAT?! Mother Theresa is/was a saint!! (quite litterally :'])

Al Gore is a crack pot who still lives in the fantasy land of "I inveted the Internet"!

Mother Theresa was a self-serving sadist who like so many members of the Catholic Church especially focused her perversions on children.

And you make it clear you buy into the "Al Gore Claimed to Invent the Internet" soundbite without even bothering to check on the fine details.

I would hope not. Al Gore is a decent human being. Mother Theresa did things I would consider barbaric and monsterous.

I would never compare Al Gore to Mother Theresa. I have far too much respect for Al Gore.

WHAT?! Mother Theresa is/was a saint!! (quite litterally :'])

Al Gore is a crack pot who still lives in the fantasy land of "I inveted the Internet"!

WHAT?! Mother Theresa is/was a saint!! (quite litterally :'])

Al Gore is a crack pot who still lives in the fantasy land of "I inveted the Internet"!

How many times do people have to be told that (a) Gore NEVER FREAKING SAID THAT, and (b) Gore can indisputably take a lot of credit for the existence of the internet, seeing as he sponsored the bill that funded development of the military's Arpanet into something that could be used globally - a.k.a. the internet - before they stop repeating that stupid lie?

WHAT?! Mother Theresa is/was a saint!! (quite litterally :'])

Mother Theresa denied medication to people in pain because she believed that their suffering would bring them closer to god.

Read that again, she intentionally witheld medication from suffering people.

Some fucking saint.

I still think the award could have been given to more deserving persons/entities, but Gore isn't undeserving as such.

Something you haven't done in connecting space exploration to animal husbantry.

I can!

I would award an award of animal husbandry to the person who managed to effectively conduct animal husbandry in space.

Space exploration with animal husbandry ftw! Imagine the societal results of that... it would make exploration a lot easier.

Mother Theresa was a self-serving sadist who like so many members of the Catholic Church especially focused her perversions on children.

And you make it clear you buy into the "Al Gore Claimed to Invent the Internet" soundbite without even bothering to check on the fine details.

ok firstly... its not the Campaign season.. take a deep breath.. its called a joke (like haha funny..)

and 2... what perversions on children did Mother Theresa perpetuate !?

and 2... what perversions on children did Mother Theresa perpetuate !?

Mother Theresa denied medication to people in pain because she believed that their suffering would bring them closer to god.

Read that again, she intentionally witheld medication from suffering people.

Some fucking saint.

Sadism. And many of the suffering were children in Calcutta. Hence the comment about her focusing her perversions on children just like most members of the Catholic Church.

Sadism. And many of the suffering were children in Calcutta. Hence the comment about her focusing her perversions on children just like most members of the Catholic Church.

mmmm.. do you have articles pertaining to this point ? I've scowered the internet looking for some good sources yet have really found none. I would like very much I think to read more into this, since the only person I've ever known to be criticle of Mother Theresa was Christopher Hitchens..

Um Gravelin? Conflicts over resources have been occuring over many thousands of years.
Yes. So?

Are you now saying that conflicts over resources are OK - and that they're OK because they've been happening (too) often in the past?

Again...been going on longer than the debate on global warming.
So? Irrelevant. The question is if global climate change is a brand new reason for such things to occur. If conflicts start due to the effects of global warming, wouldn't it only be for the benefit of humanity to fight global climate change - regardless if conflicts over resources has occurred before for different reasons? Since fighting climate change effectively would reduce the possibility of conflicts all over the world?


Still not seeing that it is connected with global warming.
That's mostly your problem. However, seeing as you can't even spell my name right... ;)

In the case of banning land mines, I think few other issues could have more relevance than the effort to eliminate arms (in whatever form) from conflict in terms of promoting peace and combating conflict. Would you also argue banning necular weapons would have no impact on promoting peace ?
Weapons of mass destruction does not equal a kind of weapon that can be likened to land mines. So no, I wouldn't argue that, but I could argue that the banning of landmines did not go far to promoting peace and combating conflict...

Fighting for human rights again, could possibly be no more relvant to the issue of promoting social peace. As well with improving the lives of the impoverish (though this is not nearly the extent of the international organization which Mother Theresa founded). Can you not see the direct link between quality of life (or lack there of) and social strife? Where do you think suicide bombers come from ? (impoverished, uneducated, vulnerable individuals)
Aha, yet you don't believe the connection between quality of life and social strife where the quality of life is reduced due to climate change? You make a good argument for awarding the IPCC (and Gore) the prize.

I won't go into the reports on how a majority of suicide bombers aren't in the category you describe.

absolutely! Because through hindsight, we are able to see that their effort produced meaningful results. I could go out now and make a struggle to cure all world hunger. But if my efforts all result in utter failure, should I still be considered for the nobel peace prize, cause I tried "real hard"?
Yes.

Of what? My assertion that Humans have dip diddley squat of any real measure to do with the rising temperatures?

For starters, sure. Just make sure you tell me which neo-con's talking points you're regurgitating. My support comes from the vast majority of climate scientists and the IPCC.

Sorry to break the bad news to ya, but it's way past that already at a station in Orlando, FL. $4.39 for regular.

We all want out of this oil mess, so rather than invent blame for global warming, why not insist on a Manhattan Project level effort to get us all off of the stuff?

Show me the candidates that will do THAT and I don't care what party's flag they fly, I'll vote for them in a heartbeat. Hell, I'd even volunteer to help them get elected.

But they damn well better deliver...............

Agreed.

WTF is it with foreigners and their fetish for "Fräulein"? (Yes, I'm looking at both of you)

And well, we established your blindness before already, no? ;P


Allow me to just join the cringing, yes?


Just wait till the day I'll write in Swedish, men det får anstå tills vidare.

Okay, so I forgot the German need to capitalize all nouns, and a few endings (and I HAD umlauten already, thank you).

With regard to the diminutive -lein suffix, it stems from my assumption that the vast majority of Netizens are under 30, which was the age I was taught to switch to Frau. Y'know, for someone who's last German class was before the Berlin Wall fell, I'd have expected a bit more leniency. Mein' Herz ist schwer. Had I to decide all over again, I'd have taken Spanish. Bilingual in Spanish gets you hired one hell of a lot more often in this country than bilingual in German. I only took German because my great-grandparents were from Hanover and Prussia -- I had a genetic predisposition to pronouncing umlauted vowels and throat-clearing consonants.

As for blindness, I thought women preferred their ages to be underestimated. Again, my apologies.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You have no clue who Neslon Mandela is, do you.

wait wait wait, did he actually agree with my "warmongering fuck Nelson Mandela" comment? And I missed it?

Agreed.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You have no clue who Neslon Mandela is, do you.

wait wait wait, did he actually agree with my "warmongering fuck Nelson Mandela" comment? And I missed it?

That kinda says it all about him, doesn't it? :D

Yes.

awwww :(

Well you know, Nelson Mandela was a warmongering fuck. Speaking as a historian...

wait wait wait, did he actually agree with my "warmongering fuck Nelson Mandela" comment? And I missed it?

Yes.

awwww :(

Well you know, Nelson Mandela was a warmongering fuck. Speaking as a historian...

Well, it's still in his post last I checked. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13128408#post13128408)

And if it's not, I got a screencap.

Weapons of mass destruction does not equal a kind of weapon that can be likened to land mines. So no, I wouldn't argue that, but I could argue that the banning of landmines did not go far to promoting peace and combating conflict... .

True, wmd are of course a graver concern...But fewer weapons of war have such persisting and last effects as landmines and cluster bombs. Move lives are probably lost to munitions such as these than shells or guns themselves. For me, the same way selling weapons fosters conflict, so banning them fosters peace. Remove the means by which to wage war, and parties will be open to alternatives routes, or at the very least have a lesser impact on the innocents around them.

Aha, yet you don't believe the connection between quality of life and social strife where the quality of life is reduced due to climate change? You make a good argument for awarding the IPCC (and Gore) the prize.

I won't go into the reports on how a majority of suicide bombers aren't in the category you describe. .

I think we have yet to see the extent by which climate change (due to global warming) will truly affect the quality of life. While I wouldn't doubt those effects will be sever, Gores actions haven’t been shown to directly have an impact in anyway in regards to global climate change. While in contrast, the aforementioned individuals actually did DIRECTLY affect the quality of life of the people they sought out to serve.

And are you disputing that a notable proportion of suicide bombers actually do fall in the category I describe?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130858&page=1

perfectly illustrating my point I belive... :
"What makes you sacrifice your life? As a human being, no matter how old, it's basically when there is nothing left for you. Nothing left," said Mahdi Abdul-Hadi, chairman of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, a think tank. "And here is a special mission where you can do something,"




Yes.

I guess we must agree to disagree then.

awwww :(

Well you know, Nelson Mandela was a warmongering fuck. Speaking as a historian...

http://209.85.12.231/11055/49/emo/lolani.gif :fluffle:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You have no clue who Neslon Mandela is, do you.

Of course I do. He did a hell of a lot to end apartied in South Africa. He was very deserving of the award if you want to exclude his guirella war against the regime that killed many innocent civilians.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You have no clue who Neslon Mandela is, do you.

Oh and as an addendum...he admitted that his group violated human rights as well. Still deserving for his efforts to end apartied through peaceful means though. Alwell...sarcasm is 100% lost on these forums.

So, he made one film, and traveled around in his private jet talking about global warming, and when he's done he goes back to his mansion which use more energy than a small town, and I bet he has one or two SUV in the garage. Yea, great guy.

Exxcept he wasn't on a private jet. And if you want to bring up his home electricity usage, please keep in mind he runs two offices out of it and gets his electricity from green sources.

I think we have yet to see the extent by which climate change (due to global warming) will truly affect the quality of life. While I wouldn't doubt those effects will be sever, Gores actions haven’t been shown to directly have an impact in anyway in regards to global climate change. While in contrast, the aforementioned individuals actually did DIRECTLY affect the quality of life of the people they sought out to serve.
Which you'll get to judge in hindsight.

And without his campaign to raise the alarm, would the dangers of climate change be as publicly known as it is?

And are you disputing that a notable proportion of suicide bombers actually do fall in the category I describe?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130858&page=1

perfectly illustrating my point I belive... :
A notable portion? No, I'm not disputing that. But as I said, I won't go into that here.

I guess we must agree to disagree then.
No.

No, for once that won't cut it. You see, it's not up to you and I, it's up to Alfred Nobel. And he wrote in his will what I've quoted before:
The prize for peace was to be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses." The prize was to be awarded "by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting."
It is sufficient that they have worked for it, not that they have produced actual results.

So you see, you may disagree all you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that the requirements are as listed above. So you would, by your example, be eligible to be nominated for the prize.

Oh and as an addendum...he admitted that his group violated human rights as well. Still deserving for his efforts to end apartied through peaceful means though. Alwell...sarcasm is 100% lost on these forums.

Sarcasm? How is "Agreed" easily detectable sarcasm?

It is a sad, sad day when bad science, manipulated data and proven-wrong conclusions garner such an award.

I remember a day when the Nobel actually meant something...........now all it seems to be is another political tool for the drooling loony left.

Wow. Someone noticed that temperatures are rising.

Unable to further their evil Socialist agendae any other way, I can see how this went.......

"Here's the deal..........our glorious Socialist movement is getting hung up all over the place....people aren't as stupid as we hoped.....we need something to scare the beejeezus out of them with to get them on OUR side......HEY! I got it! We tell them that the Earth is going to be a dried-up cinder and it's ALL THEIR FAULT! We have enough scientists on the payroll to get this done.............

Never mind the fact that it has happened before, and that it is happening all over the bleeding solar system, it MUST be caused by humans.

Now that we've convinced the idiots, we are poised to make our fortune in BS like carbon credits and other such ponzi-inspired charlatan games.

And if we keep screaming it loud enough, we will eventually drown out the real scientists and the truth will be what WE say it is......."


And the lemmings buy it, hook, line and sinker.

What a sad state of affairs.

It's so funny how Usians are the only ones who want to debate the validity of global climate change.

Sarcasm? How is "Agreed" easily detectable sarcasm?

Oh I forgot...sarcasm is not easily detected in print form without the /sarcasm at the end of it.

No, for once that won't cut it. You see, it's not up to you and I, it's up to Alfred Nobel. And he wrote in his will what I've quoted before:

It is sufficient that they have worked for it, not that they have produced actual results.

So you see, you may disagree all you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that the requirements are as listed above. So you would, by your example, be eligible to be nominated for the prize.

I disagree, by your own quotation, I would have had to have "done the most or the best to produce fraternity between nations...etc". I am arguing that this is imersurable at the current stage of his campegin. We dont know yet what effect his campegin has fosterd to produce fraternity between nations in regards to climate change. It may at the end of the day result in nothing.

Of course the commitee has nominated him and awarded him.. but I may still dispute he hasn't met the requirements Nobel set out in the first place :']

So we will agree to disagree :D

Man I love NSG. Its one of the few places I can go to see, firsthand, people screaming 'PROVE ME WRONG' at each other and spouting semi-unrelated arguements while totaly ignoring the other side, then filling half the page with links to random sites and changing the subject.
Good times.

Exxcept he wasn't on a private jet. And if you want to bring up his home electricity usage, please keep in mind he runs two offices out of it and gets his electricity from green sources.Gore's home actually uses less electricity per square foot than most homes. Yeah, he lives in a big mansion and has a couple of offices in it. I don't remember him advocating all rich folk live in a dinky place like mine. That he's not some ascetic self-denial saint doesn't make him a hypocrite or mean global warming is something he made up.

It's so funny how Usians are the only ones who want to debate the validity of global climate change.

The mods dislike the use of the term 'USian', its considered trolling now.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=488261

TG also expressed his dislike of the term in another thread I'm too lazy to find.

The mods dislike the use of the term 'USian', its considered trolling now.

That's not what the ruling was, it was ruled that threads and discussions on it were no-no. I am unaware of anyone being found trolling just by that word.

LOL
Fox news is saying Petraeus deserves the Nobel. How droll.

I disagree, by your own quotation, I would have had to have "done the most or the best to produce fraternity between nations...etc". I am arguing that this is imersurable at the current stage of his campegin. We dont know yet what effect his campegin has fosterd to produce fraternity between nations in regards to climate change. It may at the end of the day result in nothing.

Of course the commitee has nominated him and awarded him.. but I may still dispute he hasn't met the requirements Nobel set out in the first place :']

So we will agree to disagree :D

If you insist...

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Agreement.jpg

I still say it's enough because he's "Done the best", and I do seem to be in line with the comittee... Ah well >.<

LOL
Fox news is saying Petraeus deserves the Nobel. How droll.

BWAHAHAHAHA!! :D

Oprah might win before him :p

Gore's home actually uses less electricity per square foot than most homes. Yeah, he lives in a big mansion and has a couple of offices in it. I don't remember him advocating all rich folk live in a dinky place like mine. That he's not some ascetic self-denial saint doesn't make him a hypocrite or mean global warming is something he made up.

Does he like higher gas prices?

That's not what the ruling was, it was ruled that threads and discussions on it were no-no. I am unaware of anyone being found trolling just by that word.

What ^he said. Speaking as a citizen of the United States of America, I got no beef with USan (except that the "i" doesn't belong in it).

Those that do are really reaching too far for something to get pissed about.

Does he like higher gas prices?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, 'cause that's ALL Gore's fault. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.

BWAHAHAHAHA!! :D

Oprah might win before him :p

Yeah...why anyone gives Fox News any credibility anymore, I will never understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EchoVect
Of what? My assertion that Humans have dip diddley squat of any real measure to do with the rising temperatures?

For starters, sure. Just make sure you tell me which neo-con's talking points you're regurgitating. My support comes from the vast majority of climate scientists and the IPCC.

..............

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&mode=related&search

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/manmade_global_warming_so_what.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/why_global_warming_is_probably.html

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

There's a few to get you started. There's over 215 of them. Let me know when you want more.

And BTW, calling stuff "Neo-Con Talking Points" straight out of hand without bothering to give the documents an objective look says volumes about things like closed minds and decided stands..........

:rolleyes:

Yeah, 'cause that's ALL Gore's fault. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.

I repeat my question: Does he support higher gas prices?

Man I love NSG. Its one of the few places I can go to see, firsthand, people screaming 'PROVE ME WRONG' at each other and spouting semi-unrelated arguements while totaly ignoring the other side, then filling half the page with links to random sites and changing the subject.
Good times.

I like the NSG because I first clicked on this thread there were eleven pages and then when I posted this reply two minutes later there were 14. NSG kicks @$$, even if I hate the opinions of half the people on it. Very Good times.

I dunno about Gore because I haven't heard what he thinks on the matter of gas prices one way or another, but I for one want higher gas prices so that the push for alternative fuels becomes greater.

I dunno about Gore because I haven't heard what he thinks on the matter of gas prices one way or another, but I for one want higher gas prices so that the push for alternative fuels becomes greater.

I am opposed to such a thing, mainly because the people who can afford to guzzle gas would be able to afford the new prices, while the people who are struggling would be severely harmed by it.

I am opposed to such a thing, mainly because the people who can afford to guzzle gas would be able to afford the new prices, while the people who are struggling would be severely harmed by it.

Actually I struggle myself and have to use my car for work. I'm payign quite a bit every week for gas. I am still willing to pay higher gas prices if it means a push towards alternative fuel research being sped up.

Actually I struggle myself and have to use my car for work. I'm payign quite a bit every week for gas. I am still willing to pay higher gas prices if it means a push towards alternative fuel research being sped up.

Yes, but what of those who can't afford it and rely on automotive travel?

LOL
Fox news is saying Petraeus deserves the Nobel. How droll.

Why are you watching Fox News? I hear their stupid is contagious.

Yes, but what of those who can't afford it and rely on automotive travel?

They'll have to travel less or carpool or use public transportation.

They'll have to travel less or carpool or use public transportation.

But what if they can't?

Yes, but what of those who can't afford it and rely on automotive travel?

They do what I do, cut out everything but the bare necessities or else they are SOL. There are other things they can do as well such as take public transportation or work out a carpool. If they have to wake up early to take a really far bike ride they do that. Sometimes we need to sacrifice stuff to get by. The oil companies could cut their profit down to pre-2000 levels and still make a killing as well.

I'm confused. What exactly has he done to deserve this award? Did he lead a civil rights movement and battle racism? No. Did he conduct research into methods of producing abundant food supplies and save a billion people from starvation? No. Did he negotiate a peace treaty between bitter rivals and end years of strife? No. Did he use noviolent protest to drive out an oppressive imperial government and put an end to centuries of exploitation? No.

Oh wait, now I remember what he did. Mr. Gore made a shitty PowerPoint presentation about how the world was going to end because he lost a presidential election. Now as far as PPs go it was fairly well put together and certainly flashy but it was a bit short on substance and went over the top with the doomsday scenarios and it seems a little difficult to trust a man when he refuses to take his own advice. He didn't deserve this award, all he did was globe trot screaming the end is nigh. Were there no doctors who'd come up with a new prosthetic vital organ? Were there no ambassadors or negotiators who'd quelled violence? Were there no civil rights leaders? No scientists, no architects, no soup kitchen cooks? Gore is a washed-up has-been politician who goes around acting like a Hollywood celebrity, bitter and friendless, pining for fame and power from a bygone era. There has to have been someone, anyone, more worthy.

But what if they can't?

They're lying if they say they can't.

Gore wasn't the only person to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Actually read up on stuff before spouting out.

There has to have been someone, anyone, more worthy.

Then name someone and state your reasons why. This outta be good.

They do what I do, cut out everything but the bare necessities or else they are SOL. There are other things they can do as well such as take public transportation or work out a carpool. If they have to wake up early to take a really far bike ride they do that. Sometimes we need to sacrifice stuff to get by. The oil companies could cut their profit down to pre-2000 levels and still make a killing as well.

That seems unnecessarily cruel.

Here's a good question for all you "cars are teh ebil" types: What gives you, or anyone else, the right to tell me how to live my life?

They post here.

Here's a good question for all you "cars are teh ebil" types: What gives you, or anyone else, the right to tell me how to live my life?

Here's a good question for all you "cars are teh ebil" types: What gives you, or anyone else, the right to tell me how to live my life?

Taxes, that's what.

Here's a good question for all you "cars are teh ebil" types: What gives you, or anyone else, the right to tell me how to live my life?

It depends. If your behavior poses a clear direct threat or danger to the rest of the community, that's pretty good grounds for restricting or banning said behavior. You do not have a right to directly harm me or anyone else through your habits.

Mind you, I am not of the opinion that cars should be restricted or banned; rather, the focus should be on making cars more efficient and more environmentally friendly through the use of environmental regulations, stricter fuel efficiency laws, and higher gasoline taxes. This would encourage people to pursue more environmentally friendly habits without seriously impacting their freedom to own an automobile; in a lot of cases, gains in fuel efficiency or more environmentally friendly materials will have zero impact on the quality of the vehicle and will likely significantly improve it.

Let's keep the benefits of cars while simultaneously offsetting their downside; this should not be a zero-sum game, where one side has to lose in order for the other to win.

That seems unnecessarily cruel.

What about higher gas taxes and the revenue goes to people making below a certain amount to help them get gas vouchers so they can get by? That way the rich people who can afford to guzzle all the gas they want can help the people who spend as little as possible on gas just to get where they need to go.

Taxes, that's what.
Explain. How does governt endorsed theft give YOU the right to tell me how to live?

What about higher gas taxes and the revenue goes to people making below a certain amount to help them get gas vouchers so they can get by? That way the rich people who can afford to guzzle all the gas they want can help the people who spend as little as possible on gas just to get where they need to go.

...That seems like a good idea. Now if we can just cut down on the rich people's gas intake...

Explain. How does governt endorsed theft give YOU the right to tell me how to live?

Higher gas taxes don't tell you how to live. They just make wasteful living more expensive. You can still choose to live wastefully if you like.

...That seems like a good idea. Now if we can just cut down on the rich people's gas intake...


Well when they find out that they are paying for gas for the poor too they'll end up using less out of spite. :cool:

Here's a good question for all you "cars are teh ebil" types: What gives you, or anyone else, the right to tell me how to live my life?

What gives you the right, through your actions, to impoverish and starve families living a continent away?

This here is one of them there fancy rhetorical questions...

Explain. How does governt endorsed theft give YOU the right to tell me how to live?

Well, for one you calling it "government endorsed theft" doesn't speak much for your ability to lead that life responsibly. Second, I get to vote for parties that enact laws that penalise resource-wasteful behaviour.

What gives you the right, through your actions, to impoverish and starve families living a continent away?

He's American, duh. It's in our Constitution.

What about higher gas taxes and the revenue goes to people making below a certain amount to help them get gas vouchers so they can get by? That way the rich people who can afford to guzzle all the gas they want can help the people who spend as little as possible on gas just to get where they need to go.

It doesn't really address the structural problems. (Namely that the working poor have the longest commutes and the shittiest cars).

I'd rather the money went to subsidizing new high efficiency vehicles for them rather than giving them tokens to fill their 1980 F-150s.

Also, I think the working poor should get subsidized housing closer to CBDs. Conversely, the long term welfare merchants should be housed well out of city centers, where the costs are lower. Sort of the complete opposite to today.

It doesn't really address the structural problems. (Namely that the working poor have the longest commutes and the shittiest cars).

I'd rather the money went to subsidizing new high efficiency vehicles for them rather than giving them tokens to fill their 1980 F-150s.

Also, I think the working poor should get subsidized housing closer to CBDs. Conversely, the long term welfare merchants should be housed well out of city centers, where the costs are lower. Sort of the complete opposite to today.

Now if only there were a way to make it work...

He's American, duh. It's in our Constitution.

Silly me :p

Then name someone and state your reasons why. This outta be good.
Terri Lomax, Professor of Botany and Plant Pathology at Oregon State University. She works on GE foods that have been proven to save lives.
Monsanto and the legion of scientists employed there.
Medtronic and the developers of the new stent.
Paul Winchell and Robert Jarvik for inventing and implanting the first functioning artificial heart in a patient.
Pfizer and their scientists for their work in AIDS drugs or any of the other life saving and life prolonging drugs they've made.
And that's just some of the candidates from America. The list is endless. There are hundreds of people more qualified for this award because of their work in improving and saving the lives of people all over the world, for the advances in medicine and agriculture.

Terri Lomax, Professor of Botany and Plant Pathology at Oregon State University. She works on GE foods that have been proven to save lives.
Monsanto and the legion of scientists employed there.
Medtronic and the developers of the new stent.
Paul Winchell and Robert Jarvik for inventing and implanting the first functioning artificial heart in a patient.
Pfizer and their scientists for their work in AIDS drugs or any of the other life saving and life prolonging drugs they've made.
And that's just some of the candidates from America. The list is endless. There are hundreds of people more qualified for this award because of their work in improving and saving the lives of people all over the world, for the advances in medicine and agriculture.

And which ones have anything to do with peace?

improving and saving the lives of people all over the world, for the advances in medicine and agriculture.

The peace prize is awarded to ""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." By these standards, a person like Gore or the IGPCC would be eligible, and deserving, if the sudden and widespread surge in discussion and action on climate change and the negative effects of fossil fuels are any sign.

I don't think companies are eligible for the Prize due to the various conflicts of interests that would be associated with such a move. Personally, I do feel that companies should receive recognition for performing actions that serve the common interest of mankind, but I'm not Alfred Nobel or the committee that awards prizes, so my opinion is rather meaningless.

And which ones have anything to do with peace?

Not to mention that there are Nobel prizes for medicine/physiology and chemistry...

It doesn't really address the structural problems. (Namely that the working poor have the longest commutes and the shittiest cars).

I'd rather the money went to subsidizing new high efficiency vehicles for them rather than giving them tokens to fill their 1980 F-150s.

Also, I think the working poor should get subsidized housing closer to CBDs. Conversely, the long term welfare merchants should be housed well out of city centers, where the costs are lower. Sort of the complete opposite to today.

Good points. It could be a great boost to the US auto industry as well helping to create more jobs and whatnot. I'd say give the money to the manufacturers that haven't fought against high fuel efficiency standards. Theres gotta be one at least right?

to be fair to Indri though, that is a lot better response than I expected after seeing some of those earlier comments.

Good points. It could be a great boost to the US auto industry as well helping to create more jobs and whatnot. I'd say give the money to the manufacturers that haven't fought against high fuel efficiency standards. Theres gotta be one at least right?

I don't think so. Actually, I'd consider giving them to Toyota and Honda...they fought new regulations, but only to apparently dupe the foolish Big Three automakers in to overdependence on trucks and SUVs while they invested in producing profitable, efficient models that lift the overall economy of their fleet.

The end result is huge gains in market share as oil prices rise and the SUV market declines further and further.

And which ones have anything to do with peace?
Norman Borlaug won it in 1970 for his work in GE food. Albert Schweitzer won it in 1952 for founding a hospital. You don't have to be a negotiator to win this award.

I don't think so. Actually, I'd consider giving them to Toyota and Honda...they fought new regulations, but only to apparently dupe the foolish Big Three automakers in to overdependence on trucks and SUVs while they invested in producing profitable, efficient models that lift the overall economy of their fleet.

The end result is huge gains in market share as oil prices rise and the SUV market declines further and further.


Yeah, especially Honda. They seem to be the most forward thinking.

Norman Borlaug won it in 1970 for his work in GE food. Albert Schweitzer won it in 1952 for founding a hospital. You don't have to be a negotiator to win this award.

Actually, Schweitzer won it for the philosophy behind it, which was symbolized by the founding of that hospital.

However, I would say if a researcher made major progress on genetic engineering, selective breeding, or a similar advance that was widely disseminated and used to make significant gains against world hunger and food insecurity, they'd definitely deserve the prize.

Norman Borlaug won it in 1970 for his work in GE food. Albert Schweitzer won it in 1952 for founding a hospital. You don't have to be a negotiator to win this award.

Borlaug won it for combating world hunger. That he used GE food to do so was irrelevant.

Good for him.

Is that talking point made to make you sound as ignorant about history and the reasons for why Arafat got to share the prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres as it does, or what? The Oslo Accords and their follow-up were monumental for their time and very deserving of the prize - the subsequent cluster fuck that Israel would become when one of their own right-wingers killed Rabin and the downward spiral created by the repercussions thereof has no bearing on the fact that at the time the prize was awarded Arafat, Rabin and Peres had accomplished great things for peace.

If you wanted to make some sort of historically accurate jibe about the Peace Prize, you should have gone with Kissinger - now there was a prize so undeserved that the man he shared it with, Le Duc Tho, refused it.

If you had gone with that, you would have perhaps stood above the people who disseminate the lie that Al Gore is ever to have said that he "invented" the Internet, but you aren't actually concerned with accuracy and the truth, are you? Thought not.

Well said m8

All I have to say, to the above arguement, is that you know something wrong when Peace Prizes are being handed out in the Middle East; most especially to a terroist/strong-man like Arafat.

Anyhow, I really don't care either way why, just the when.

His movie has been out for how long? Talk about delayed reaction, I think if the committe had a ounce of independence, it'd have picked him sooner, if at all. Several years after the fact, just seems a little too late, especially when you have so many other people doing so much more (actual) work to combat it.

So, Gore wins an award for lying and fearmongering, and the UN wins an award for being useless. Are these those kind of awards they hand out to people for being terrible in certain domains? It'd explain so much.

You know, I use to think that NSG was far left. Now I see that it's either a few guys with tasteful sarcasm (Lunatic Goofballs, Smunky, Katganistan, Ruffy, etc.) and a lot of generally upset people.

So long, folks! I'm outta here!

You know, I use to think that NSG was far left. Now I see that it's either a few guys with tasteful sarcasm (Lunatic Goofballs, Smunky, Katganistan, Ruffy, etc.) and a lot of generally upset people.
I've only been here a short while, and I can already tell there are many... "upset" individuals. Imagine, such arrogance! To be created by the Lord, and to be "upset".

So, Gore wins an award for lying and fearmongering, ...

At least Al Gore came by his award honestly. Unlike the lying fearmonger Dubya.

At least Al Gore came by his award honestly. Unlike the lying fearmonger Dubya.
Bush is a false prophet. Hellfire will descend upon him the minute he departs from his meek corpse. Only True Believers will escape such a fate.

Bush is a false prophet. Hellfire will descend upon him the minute he departs from his meek corpse. Only True Believers will escape such a fate.

Bush =/= meek.
http://bushspeaks.com/img/bush-kisses-lieberman.jpg
Although he has the apparent mental capacity of a corpse.
Admittedly more charisma though.

Bush is a false prophet. Hellfire will descend upon him the minute he departs from his meek corpse. Only True Believers will escape such a fate.

Last time I checked, Bush never claimed to be a prophet. Also, Bush is not the false Prophet considering the fact that the anti-christ is not even in power nor around yet as far as I know. Man! And people think that I'm a religious nutcase.

You know, I use to think that NSG was far left. Now I see that it's either a few guys with tasteful sarcasm (Lunatic Goofballs, Smunky, Katganistan, Ruffy, etc.) and a lot of generally upset people.

So long, folks! I'm outta here!

Huh? :confused:

And who are you, anyway?