Austinist: Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize Winner

Numero Uno Guest

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:53:31 -0600

"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

lacey

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:07:38 -0600

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.

guest

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:03:49 -0600

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.

Elizabeth S.

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:57:47 -0600

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

guest

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:52:52 -0600

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?

guest

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:47:30 -0600

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.

guest

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:37:01 -0600

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