Al Gore and the IPCC have won the 2007 Nobel Peace prize “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”.
Now run for president, Al — we need someone with the respect of the international community to repair all that our current chief nitwit has broken.
Yeah really. Too bad he was too honest to win the last time he ran. Arghh!
I wish he would run. Have you thought though that maybe he’s doing more important work in educating people than he could achieve through being president?
Education is a force which can change the world as much as any politician.
Why is everyone going on with the draft Gore thing? Don’t you see that the peace prize is well earned here because Gore really has been urging us to make peace with our environment? Let him continue succeeding in a job that a US president would be unable to do. Ultimately humans often fight each other because the damn lot of them have wasted resources and are incapable of sharing what remains.
I think that 1) there is no question about that, and 2) Gore knows it. It’s great to see that the Norwegians have recognized the importance of his efforts.
Anyway, The Assault on Reason is not exactly the kind of carefully mealy-mouthed book you write if you’re running for something. I had only to read a few pages before I realized that all those hoping for him to run would be disappointed.
Oh- is Norway giving him a prize as well?
The international community’s respect for the US is beyond repair, at this point.
You might want to look up some info about who awards the Nobel Peace Prize (as opposed to the science prizes)…
Christian:
What Steve said. In fact, look here.
#6 Marcus, I think many of us know the difference between the US and its current administration.
Bill and Steve: OK- I deserved that!
I’ve harbored hope that he would run since I read ‘Assault on Reason.’ I’ve got this secret wish that Clinton and Obama have been campaigning solely to fill national and personal coffers, and that they will happily step aside to their respective positions of power in the Senate.
I wish I had more photoshop talent – I keep wanting to put together a LotR scene with Gore: Please, take the ring! We’re offering it to you!
John (#9):
I wish more Americans would.
I doubt he will let himself down again to the dirty machinations of everyday politics. He’s above those things now and thinks in bigger terms.
He doesn’t want to only save the US. He wants to save the whole world ;)
Hear, hear.
Marcus, in reply to comment six, if the respect for the US is beyond repair, then we might as well take the gloves off, mobilize totally, and take over the whole damned planet, using all methods at our disposal.
Let them squeal then when we rule with an Iron Hand.
USA OVER ALL!
There is now NO ALTERNATIVE!
He just has to run. That’s all there is to it.
As President, he would have the ear of the public much more than he has now.
He could really, really make a difference on climate change from the bully pulpit of the presidency.
It’s a no-brainer.
Al, do not settle for some dinkbag appointment under Hillary in 2009. If you are thinking of being the Climate Change Czar in a Democratic administration, you are making a BIG mistake.
RUN FOR PRESIDENT!
American’s want political figures they can spit on, not figures that can spit on them… so to speak.
Gore is too good for the presidency.
Winning a Nobel Peace Prize would be a huge drag on any campaign for President. That’s the kind of thing a lot of Americans are suspicious of, unfortunately.
Personally, I think he’d be a much better president than any of the chuckleheads we’re likely to end up with.
Yeah. As much as I’d like him to be president, I think it would cheapen what he’s done so far, because it would be interpreted as a run-up for the candidacy. He’s also said specifically that if he were a politician, he wouldn’t be able to have the freedom he does now in his interactions and negotiations. Not to mention that running against Hillary would be abysmally stupid because they’d split the same donor/support base. I’m guessing Gore in 2016.
Since it has been demonstrated that a president can lead us into fascism in just two terms, I’m pretty confident that a president can lead us into environmental sanity in the same time frame.
Al Gore is an idiot – it’s a shame that he touted this psuedo-scientific propaganda in everyone’s face and even worse the Nobel committee granted it to him for just a couple years of dinner party speeches and photo-ops.
An Inconvenient Truth is a political film and not scientific, whatsover:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2632660.ece
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level,” Gore said in a statement e-mailed by his office 44 minutes after the prize was announced at 5 a.m. Eastern time.
This is bullshit.
It is a political issue. Politicians make laws and sole out out tax dollars.
Laws govern what energy producers do.
Tax dollars can support alternatives to raping other countries for their oil or ripping the tops off of mountains.
I think he’s made up his mind not to do it.
Very sad.
I hope everyone saw that prayer is now being used against climate change. Maybe that’s what Al has in mind when he talks about the spiritual/moral challenge of climate change.
CalGeorge:
I’m the stupidest person to post to this board (see above), but
The science behind global warming is completely apolitical
What we do with the science is political.
Christian:
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be “giving you what you deserved”; only pointing you to (hopefully) useful information. No snark intended.
Octopussy…
You’re an idiot. Do you go to the NY POST for your science information too?
Did you miss the story this week, about how things look even worse for climate change?
Bury your head in the sand if you want.
You’re the idiot.
I think Al meant that it’s not a wedge issue created to bring down republicans.
I wish I shared your optimism, but it’s much easier to destroy than to build. And much easier to stupidify people (just look at “octopussy”) than to educate them.
Bill: Can’t you let me have my deserved comeuppance? We have to follow traditional dramatic rules that have been in place since the Greeks. It just wouldn’t do to excuse my stupidity so quickly.
octopussy,
“Al Gore is an idiot”
While we could debate the rest of what you have to say, this statement is patently false. It hurts your credability to start with a known falsehood if you’re trying to persuade anyone you know what you’re talking about.
He won last time he ran. The only way to count the ballots so that he wouldn’t have won turned out to be illegal.
But by then the SCOTUS had already stopped the official counting of the votes, stripped everyone except itself from the right to vote, and voted for Fearless Flightsuit with a 55.5-periodic % majority.
He won last time he ran. The only way to count the ballots so that he wouldn’t have won turned out to be illegal.
But by then the SCOTUS had already stopped the official counting of the votes, stripped everyone except itself from the right to vote, and voted for Fearless Flightsuit with a 55.5-periodic % majority.
According to Salon’s War-room, Al Gore is very unlikely to run
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/10/12/gore3/index.html?source=rss&aim=war_room
Pity- but I can see the logic.
What Josh Marshall said:
Where did you get NY POST from the original comments. You should at least follow the links.
I do agree that Al Gore is most certainly not an idiot. He’s a smart demagogue. The most dangerous kind. The issue I have with him is that he has taken a very important scientific debate and forever tainted it with his hypocrisy and political taint. I don’t think anyone disputes the fact of global warming. What reasonable people can disagree about is what our response should be. Should we force China and India to slow their appetite for cars and 24 hour electricity? Should we tax energy consumption? Raise gas taxes? Enforce rolling brownouts during peak energy usage? Tax breaks for pebble-bed reactor technologies? Legislate SUVs out of the market?
The irony is that the implementation of Gore-style policies are very likely to raise the risk of conflict – global or local
It’s encouraging that the ratio of carping to congratulation is heavily weighted in the right direction. It’s also encouraging to see an American get any kind of international accolade, uncommon enough these days:-(
CalGeorge:
I think you’re being a bit obtuse here: Surely Gore, of all people, understands that there’s a political (in the broadest sense of the word) dimension to both the problem of anthropogenic climate change and its solution… and just as surely, you realize Gore understands that. I interpret the quote above as his attempt to appeal to people’s larger sense of right and wrong. He’s not saying the problem is divorced from politics; he’s saying (to a public increasingly cynical about the political enterprise, and not without reason) that it’s not merely a partisan political issure… that it’s bigger than that.
Aww, c’mon. This is the author of Assault on Reason we’re talking about here. “Spirit” doesn’t always refer to some metaphysical “soul,” and “spiritual” doesn’t always mean “religious.” It’s a big mistake to write off every use of elevated — and hopefully elevating — language as a descent into woo.
I didn’t. But in the NY POST I saw a hit piece on Gore that basically says science says he’s wrong. It referenced the Times article.
Conservative papers can always find a couple guys who think everyone’s wrong about everything.
Al Gore hasn’t tainted anything. And he’s not a hypocrite, Unless you’re a conservative with a capital C. Then of couse his mere existence probably offends you.
look like nice decisions all round this year:SF writer Doris lessing won the Nobel for literature- http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?id=44619
Friends please spare a few words of appreciation for Rajendra Pachauri, who although has not been awarded the Nobel in his individual capacity, will still be representing the IPCC at the awards as the leader of that organization. Pachauri although not a scientist, he has a PhD in economics and engineering, has tirelessly championed environmental responsibility. He has worked at the Tata Energy Research Institute (now renamed The Energy Research Institute) a thinktank in New Delhi for over 25 years. I first met him years ago as a cub reporter in Bombay, when he talked about a lot of things that have now become fashionable.
One of the most satisfying parts for me his how this has to stick in W’s throat. He’s probably wondering where his Nobel War Prize is.
“Must be stuck in that commie mail system somewhere.”
Dubya could always kill himself. That would be a step in the right direction toward his winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
“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”
Now, independent of what you think of Al Gore’s campaigning on climate change, what does that have to do with the peace prize? In their statement, the selection committee made no attempt to relate the Gore award to the mandate of the prize. They’ve basically decided, apparently, that they want the peace prize to be meaningless.
Stop Trolling, and at least read their f**king statement before you make such claims… From the press release…
read the rest HERE and stop spreading lies.
I see very little in these supposed nine “errors” that goes beyond the poetic license that is needed to compress all the evidence that Gore presents in his movie into the needed time frame.
His specific language is being held up to a withering scientific scrutiny here – not any of his underlying premises are challenged.
For example, the plot of the relationship between environmental C02 levels and global temperature over 650,000 years was shown. Gore said ( during a lecture) there was an “exact fit”. Evidently, one of his “errors” is that one can not demonstrate an “exact fit”.
What kind of level of scrutiny is justified in a semi-documentary film? Should he have made sure to add confidence limits?
If only global warming critics were held to such standards! Then we might not have to suffer through Octopussy’s disgustingly partisan efforts, which, by the way, include the infamous dishonesty of the Seitz Petition as a proof source.
How does Al get so much respect overseas, but such little here? Is it really the political divide again? The work he does on such a ‘controversial’ topic?
Its a real shame.
I agree, Run Al Run! ;-)
As a politician in remission, I fully recognize the personal aspect of Gore’s situation. Life on the outside offers a freedom of action and thought unavailable to the campaigning or elected. There really should be a twelve step program for failed politicos, with the higher power being the electorate. My intervention came in the Fall of 1988. A Tuesday in early November if memory serves.
Al would have been a great president, but alas it was not to be. Al is doing the lord’s work, and we have a slate of Democratic Party candidates that can only be described as excellent. I can;t remember the last time we had so many first rate folk running.
The next president is going to spend their first term doing scutwork cleaning, patching and healing. Al can make actual progress by rallying the people of the many nations to the threat of climate change.
If you think you would trust Al Gore to be president, you should trust him to know where he can be most useful
I am afraid you missed the latest news.
FWIW, the official statement from the White House spokesman Tony Fratto is
I looked this up after hearing it mentioned on NPR, which I recall also said something about Bush having had a recent change of opinion regarding global warming being anthropogenic. Anyone know more?
Wait! Wait! We’re all ATHEISTS here. Al Gore is a THEIST. That means we can’t POSSIBLY be happy for him.
We must defeat this evil theist monster from using environmental politics to enforce his Global Theocracy!
No, not really. Just remember this when some “old atheist” explains how atheism as a political movement will be counter-productive to a cohesive progressive movement.
The Bushies- hell, even Exxon Mobil- realized some time back that they couldn’t keep the denial mode going much longer. So that crowd has pretty much switched to Lomborg mode- “it’s real, but not the biggest problem we face, and cutting emissions too much with today’s technology would destroy the economy, yadda yadda.”
Thanks Willey. I hadn’t actually read the statement yet but was getting ready to broadside R Adams with the same reasoning (it’s so obvious, one doesn’t need to read the actual statement to understand how his work has advanced the hope of peace) but you beat me to the punch. Kudos.
Thanks Steve. Not the biggest problem we face … well, I guess that’s why we go the bother of (trying to) elect a new Decider every few years.
If Gore became president that would mean that one of our presidents did a voice on Futurama. That would be AMAZING.
There must not have been many good candidates this year.
bullfighter–that was funny.
So instead of just adding a snide remark, Pareto, tell us what sort of person you would have us consider a good candidate. You obviously don’t agree with the choice, there must be reasons for this. What are they? One must assume you have well defined ideas regarding who was chosen for this honor. I’m sure you could name a few who you feel would have been more appropriate. Back your comment up or back up…chump. Come on, you’re incognito here, give us a reason to believe what you say. Or, don’t bother to comment at all.
If Gore became president that would mean that one of our presidents did a voice on Futurama. That would be AMAZING.
not only that, but it would be a president who said, on Futurama:
“Peace out, y’all!”
a campaign slogan if ever i heard one.
:)
btw, he stated conclusively about 6 months ago that he would not run, and why, when he was on the Larry King show.
Congratulations to the IPGCC and Al Gore. I thought it was along shot; well deserved. W.r.t. Gore, I don’t think he should run for prez. With the prestige that comes from winning the Peace price I think he’ll be quite influential on whomever is president next (assuming a non-Republican will win). But we’ll see…
octopussy, you are one clumsy troll. If you expect to bug a crowd that actually knows something about science, you are not going to do it with hatchet job web sites like OISM.
Loved how Gore was introduced on Futurama:
“Inventor of the Environment and First Emperor of the Moon”.
Bullfighter,
I showed that piece to a friend. After she stopped laughing she asked “It’s a joke, right?”
…
GORE for Moonemperor in 2050!
Check out the Freeper goons posting over on their snarkey little site. No Nobel prize winners there.
The international community’s respect for the US is beyond repair, at this point.
Not really. I’m speaking as a Canadian here.
All it would take is a different administration with more enlightened policies for the healing to begin.
It’s never going to be perfect and not everybody is going to like you. But you can’t just throw your hands up in despair.
Keep fighting the bullshit.
Has anyone else won an Oscar and a Nobel Prize (of any kind)?
Dahan,
All I mean to say is that Al Gore doesn’t strike me as being in quite the same category as Nelson Mandela or any of the others, especially since climate change has nothing to do with peace. Compare this year’s reason to others:
“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”
“for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way”
“for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular”
“in recognition of the organization’s pioneering humanitarian work on several continents”
Preventing non-peaceful uses of nuclear energy has to do with peace.
Standing up for human rights and attempting to foster peace with a generally hostile country has to do with peace.
Transcending borders and the like to do international humanitarian work has to do with peace.
Promoting the idea of man-made climate change is not bad, but it does not have to do with peace, except in maybe the most roundabout way.
Also, I thought snide remarks were the bread and butter of this site ;)
Why? Because fighting over oil has nothing to do with peace right?
Oil=Conflict
Not all that roundabout.
especially since climate change has nothing to do with peace.
*whooosh*
the air rushing over your head just cause a sonic boom that cracked my computer monitor.
thanks a lot.
I’ll be sending you a repair bill.
Steve Labonne,
The Bushies- hell, even Exxon Mobil- realized some time back that they couldn’t keep the denial mode going much longer. So that crowd has pretty much switched to Lomborg mode- “it’s real, but not the biggest problem we face, and cutting emissions too much with today’s technology would destroy the economy, yadda yadda.”
Your phrasing is a bit exaggerated (“destroy the economy”), but that’s basically right, isn’t it? The question of how much we should cut emissions, and over what period of time, is a very difficult one.
Ehhh, not buying that. Oil-is-a-fought-over-resource to global-warming-awareness-supports-peace is too much of a stretch. I think it is a much shorter connection to imagine this as a Nobel middle finger to Bush. “He may have lost the election, but you are loathed in your own country while he has a Nobel prize.”
How did the whole Nobel prize become such an event? Five appointed Norwegian politicians pick a name from an undisclosed list of nominees for undisclosed reasons. As much as I am horrified to find myself saying this, even Hollywood’s grand masturbatory prizes seem to have more rational and appropriate methodologies. Turn the prize money into payroll. Have the previous five living winners choose the next. At least the selection committee would have some relevance to peace.
Has anyone else won an Oscar and a Nobel Prize (of any kind)?
Yes – George Bernard Shaw.
Fighting over oil? That’s still rather shakily connected. Do you think countries will stop fighting or abusing people because some guy publicized that using oil has certain negative effects? It will decrease maybe, but insignificantly. Or maybe I’m not getting your argument.
As I understand it, recognizing man-made climate change relates to peace in that it forces us to recognize a problem which affects and is caused by all of us, and that we have to work together to combat it. But I don’t consider the effects of this to be nearly as significant of a contribution to peace as befits a Nobel Peace Prize winner. It’s incomparable to the usual standard of winners; has Al Gore really contributed to peace as much as Doctors without Borders?
Is that a fair point?
“…we need someone with the respect of the international community…”
We actually already have someone who is respected by the international community. That person is Ron Paul.
Dont believe me? Try europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com and look at all their links on the sidebar.
Also try looking at the international meetup groups, such as this one: http://ronpaul.meetup.com/1072/
And take a look at http://www.whowouldtheworlelect.com, where Ron Paul is polling 2nd worldwide (and first in the USA) despite having almost no international mainstream media coverage.
Ron Paul is on FIRE worldwide. The entire world wants the USA to elect Ron Paul.
The man with international respect has already arrived. That man is Ron Paul. :)
Pareto,
Although I still don’t agree with you, I at least understand what you’re trying to say now. Thanks for the clarification. Personally, I’d like to give it to the person who has done the most to discourage the leading cause of war, religion, this year. Namely I think Dawkins would be a good place to start. Still, Gore seems like a decent choice.
Don’t tell me there are no taxes included in your electricity bill.
To European levels? This is demonstrated not to make an economy collapse. But then we have reasonable amounts of public transport over here…
And we’ve never had to legislate SUVs off the streets. Almost nobody can afford to drive one — I don’t mean to buy one, I mean to drive one.
Forget oil. Wait for the next war about water.
Or wait till the water comes instead. Wait till Bangladesh goes under…
If people stop using oil, they’ll also stop fighting over it. Sure, that’s going to happen anytime soon, but why should a Nobel prize be a short-sighted affair?
Don’t tell me there are no taxes included in your electricity bill.
To European levels? This is demonstrated not to make an economy collapse. But then we have reasonable amounts of public transport over here…
And we’ve never had to legislate SUVs off the streets. Almost nobody can afford to drive one — I don’t mean to buy one, I mean to drive one.
Forget oil. Wait for the next war about water.
Or wait till the water comes instead. Wait till Bangladesh goes under…
If people stop using oil, they’ll also stop fighting over it. Sure, that’s going to happen anytime soon, but why should a Nobel prize be a short-sighted affair?
Oh, I screwed up a blockquote tag around “especially since climate change has nothing to do with peace.”, so it got deleted…
So Ron Paul is whom the whole world wants as POTUS? Why, then, have I read so little about him that I have even forgotten to which party he belongs? As you say, he has basically no international media coverage.
Oh, I screwed up a blockquote tag around “especially since climate change has nothing to do with peace.”, so it got deleted…
So Ron Paul is whom the whole world wants as POTUS? Why, then, have I read so little about him that I have even forgotten to which party he belongs? As you say, he has basically no international media coverage.
Here is a partial rebuttal of the court ruling in Britain of Oct 10, as referred to by octopussy.
Justice Burton’s ruling appears to be politically motivated, in my opinion. I think he wanted to ban the film, but could not, so instead came up with a list of 9 (tenuous) objections. I am glad this judge was as specific in his objections as this, because it will enable such points to be quickly refuted.
Just watch as, point by point, Burton’s points get crossed off the list, and UK students will have to read a statement about some minor error in the film (assuming there are any valid points left after Burton’s decision is reviewed).
Didn’t the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger in the 70’s result in the death of irony?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1973/kissinger-bio.html
Since it has been demonstrated that a president can lead us into fascism in just two terms, I’m pretty confident that a president can lead us into environmental sanity in the same time frame.
Confidence that it’s as easy to buck corporations as to cater to them is rather stupid.
An Inconvenient Truth is a political film and not scientific, whatsover:
You’re too stupid to understand the links you gave, let alone the errors they contain. The judge said that the movie was generally accurate, and then identified 9 alleged errors — that’s why he put ‘error’ in quotes, something the news piece you linked to omitted. He didn’t determine whether there were any errors, but rather compared Gore’s claims to the IPCC findings, but made several mistakes in doing so. But since you’re a propaganda-based right wing dufus, all you do is make wild claims and throw in links that don’t support them.
Pity- but I can see the logic.
People have trouble accepting that Gore is a genuinely good person — cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think anyone disputes the fact of global warming.
It’s amazing that people as ignorant and stupid as yourself have the gall to criticize Gore.
In their statement, the selection committee made no attempt to relate the Gore award to the mandate of the prize.
Why is every right winger a liar?
There must not have been many good candidates this year.
Why are all right wingers assholes?
To those who question whether the award was meritorious, I consider that as questioning the judgement of the Nobel Prize awarders. It seems a tad arrogant.
After she stopped laughing she asked “It’s a joke, right?”
That’s also a legitimate question for the Bush v. Gore decision that ruled that counting A’s vote dilutes B’s vote and therefore violates the 14th amendment — but that this logic must not be used for any other case.
especially since climate change has nothing to do with peace
You write this even after the obvious connection offered by the prize committee was posted. You must be very stupid.
To those who question whether the award was meritorious, I consider that as questioning the judgement of the Nobel Prize awarders. It seems a tad arrogant.
More than that coming from moronic lying jackasses like Sean writing “Five appointed Norwegian politicians pick a name from an undisclosed list of nominees for undisclosed reasons”.
“We actually already have someone who is respected by the international community. That person is Ron Paul.”
Ron Paul, respected by the international community?
Here in Finland, the only people who have ever even heard of Ron Paul are those (like me) who have an interest in the US political blogs. And roughly nine out of ten of them think of him as a loon; not as malignant a loon as Bush or some of the possible Republican candidates, but a loon nevertheless.
Say what? Would you care to expound on this? Or is it I Disagree With You And Thus Toss Insults Day?
As far as I know, all five are ex/current members of parliament or political party bigwigs. Usually a combination of both.
I am pretty sure all five are Norwegian.
While those who nominate a candidate may release the name, the committee does not. I think the last disclosed list of candidates dates from the 1950s.
There are no notes on the process leading to the selection. No hint of group dynamics, debate, bargaining, or discussion. Not even a summary document that I am aware of. Do they release more than their brief press release blurb? I haven’t found it.
Wakboth – why do people (in Finland) feel that way about Ron Paul? If as many people in Finland truly feel the way you claim they do, there must be a reason for it. Please elaborate.
Back on topic: I am certainly happy that Al Gore finally got the recognition he deserves. After not getting anything for inventing the Internet – it’s nice to see that he gets the props he deserves. :)
Hey truth.
HE NEVER SAID THAT.
Marcus, in reply to comment six, if the respect for the US is beyond repair, then we might as well take the gloves off, mobilize totally, and take over the whole damned planet, using all methods at our disposal.
Come on over and get some butter on your Wonderbread :)
You are absolutely correct Steve_C… what he did say on March 9, 1999 while being interviewed on CNN by Wolf Blitzer was:
I was using a bit of levity… that’s all.
Truth be told, I’m not a huge fan of the former VP. Nor am I a fan of the current tool holding that post, either.