October 12, 2007
Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Little did we know last Monday when Al Gore stopped off in Austin for his Inconvenient Truth presentation that today he would be announced the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. There were rumors that it might happen - as a way for the Nobel committee to make a firm statement about the correlation between the environment and world peace - but now it is official.
Gore will share the prize this year with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Will Gore's win of this award above all others (one award to rule them all) lead him to another run for President? Perhaps this award is the final push needed for him to get out there and campaign.
Or perhaps Gore will keep on making his way around the world, giving his "controversial" climate change presentation and speaking out against global warming.
Photo by alexdecarvalho on flickr
|
So Gore gets to share in a Nobel Peace Prize because he made a documentary about a slide show based on a book he wrote?
Wow. They have really, really, really lowered the standards for that thing.
Not to mention the fact that Gore's presentation is so full of holes and untruths that a highschool science student thoroughly debunked it. And in Great Britain...
"Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece
The Nobel Peace Prize has become a joke. Heck, they even gave one to that thug terrorist, Yassar Arafat.
Numero Uno Guest
I could be wrong, but I think it has more to do with the fact that he's managed to get so many people interested and to whatever extent enlightened upon the issue of global warming.
Personally I think it's well-deserved.
Uno,
Gore did not win because he made a movie, he won because he raised awareness. Your reading comprehension might be blinded by your bias, but from the article linked above:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee characterized Gore as "the single individual who has done most" to convince world governments and leaders that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and poses a grave threat.
Secondly, nowhere on the internet have I been able to find anything relating to Justice Burton's (the British judge) scientific background or the sources he spoke to for his judgment. I'm sure he is imminently qualified on global warming, just like all the scientists and studies cited by Gore in his book. Surely a judge couldn't be wrong, right?
Should we dismiss Gore's warning completely because a judge -- who doesn't dismiss the human impact of global warming, but rather dismisses Gore's statements as being "alarmist" -- says so?
If you click on the "controversial" link up in the post, WIRED takes a look at/comments on the complaints the British judge has about Gore's film.
Here it is:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/10/too-convenient-.html
Does anyone else find it funny that people believe the GB study saying there are 9 lies in his book. Who says that the GB's aren't lying about the 9 lies? Blind faith always prevails. That's why we have so many stupid people in the world.
I personally am happy that the Nobel Peace Prize went to an environmentalist, but I also think it's important to note that Gore isn't the first environmentalist to receive this award. In 2004 Wangari Maathai, the Kenyan woman who founded the Greenbelt Movement, was the first environmentalist to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Very little of the news coverage I've seen mentions this.
"One of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize 'ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works'."
"'We're brainwashing our children,' said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. 'They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous.'"
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html