backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 307 comment(s) - last by Pythias.. on Oct 18 at 10:54 AM

Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth."

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri   (Source: iisd Reporting Services)
Al Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on climate change just won the Nobel

Al Gore has many admirers and critics, but on Friday the spotlight was on him again as the Nobel Peace Prize committee showered him with praise for his work promoting climate awareness and climate research.

The Nobel Peace Prize was not the first award received by Al Gore, 59, for his environmental work, but it was certainly the largest.  Al Gore had previously won an Oscar for his documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which was a surprising box office hit.

Gore shares the Peace Prize with the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), found in 1988, which is widely considered by scientists and governments worldwide as the top authority on global warming and climate change.

The IPCC has over 2,000 leading climate change scientists and experts that conduct research into climate change and collate data and information from research papers of thousands of other scientists worldwide.

The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee praised Gore as "Probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

"[The IPCC] creates an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.  [The IPCC] lays the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract [climate] change," said the committee about the IPCC.

It cited that a major justification for awarding this prize to the IPCC and Gore was to bring more attention to the increased risks of wars and violent conflicts that are posed as our climate changes.

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri was overwhelmed by the awarded.  The India-native told his cheering supporters outside his Delhi office that he hopes the award will help further awareness and a greater sense of urgency about climate change.  Rajendra Pachauri's full reaction is documented on the IPCC website (PDF).

In Washington D.C., Gore greeted the announcement by first praising the IPCC and how "tirelessly and selflessly they have worked for many years." Gore added, "We face a true planetary emergency.  It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

Gore will donate half of his $1.5 million dollars in Nobel Prize money to Alliance for Climate Protection.

Gore's work has had a major effect on the technology industry.  With his help, public sentiment has shifted as people realize that oil dependence will only last so many years.  This shift in turn has led to all the major car companies heavily pursuing, promoting, and investing in hybrid vehicles, many of which have been featured at DailyTech.

While his efforts to promote global warming research have often overshadowed his other environmental initiatives, Gore has also been a strong promoter of equally controversial rainforest protection, toxic waste control, and National Park System expansion initiatives.

The news follows the announcementsthat a British court declared An Inconvenient Truth unfit for British schools, as it has nine alleged factual inaccuracies.  Michael Asher elaborates more in his DailyTech blog.

James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute, blasted Gore for his work on The Inconvenient Truth. "The British High Court properly recognized that Al Gore's movie is nine parts political propaganda and one part science. Virtually every assertion that Gore makes in the movie has been strongly contradicted by sound science."

Regardless, Al Gore and the IPPC now have their names cemented in immortality among other Peace Prize laureates including Nelson Mandela, Theodore Roosevelt and Mother Teresa.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 10:26:49 AM , Rating: 5
He's devoted a lot of his life to this. Even his critics would probably agree that living in a world with less pollution is not a bad thing.




RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good for him
By jacarte8 on 10/12/2007 10:29:08 AM , Rating: 4
Exactly... I'm not an alarmist about climate change, but certainly know we need to start thinking ahead. Glad to see serious attention brought, rather than scare-me stories in the news (and various DailyTech blogs).


RE: Good for him
By GreenyMP on 10/12/2007 10:39:06 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. I applaud his devotion to his cause. I wish that Mr. Gore's causes were more inline with my own, but you have to give a guy credit that pursues a conviction as hard and as long as the father of the internet has (I guess he has to share that title with Kim Jong Il now).

But I still don't know what it has to do with peace.


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 10:49:58 AM , Rating: 1
The peace prize is not only for creating peace. It is also awarded for resolving issues that face mankind.

Specifically, Gore and the UN received the 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"


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 10:58:08 AM , Rating: 2
Alfred Nobel is rolling in his grave. Here were the original mandate for the 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".

The only other clause is that the person still be living (which is why Gandhi never received an award).

Someone jokingly stated Dick Cheney should win the award. Well, I mean in a sense he dissolved the entire Iraqi Army overnight. As asinine as it sounds, he was a better candidate for this award than Al Gore.

Pardon me while I go do some research on the candidates who actually should have won this.


RE: Good for him
By fic2 on 10/12/2007 12:03:11 PM , Rating: 5
By the definition given Cheney does probably deserve it more than anyone. He has pretty much united all the nations to band together against the U.S.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
Hold onto that quote, it will make you famous.


RE: Good for him
By xphile on 10/15/2007 6:53:55 AM , Rating: 2
Based on that criteria one George W Bush has been the unrivaled winner for the last 5 years solid. And there definitely is a certain peace in knowing who your real enemies are. Friends close ... etc. Yay for real democracy like the Jeb Bush Florida Felon Voting System. I wouldn't mind being a Kennedy, but I'm damn glad I'm not an American when BS like that takes place over and over again.

I'm really happy for Gore. He may not deserve this in some ways, but it pretty much makes up for the fact that for most people with half a brain or more outside the US he will always be the real 43rd president that wasn't - and thats a nice bit of justice. That and the fact that in 100 years he will be applauded and GW will be scorned.


RE: Good for him
By KeithTalent on 10/12/2007 12:08:26 PM , Rating: 5
Right and he wasn't rolling in his grave when Arafat won it?

Anyway, just because the award recipient's work does not adhere 100% to the original idea presented by Nobel, it does not mean the recipient is any less deserving. Times change and I think the interpretation of the award is subject to change to a certain degree as well as long as the general spirit of the award is kept intact.


RE: Good for him
By Chaser on 10/12/2007 12:13:38 PM , Rating: 4
This is just a slap in the face to the United States by all the good intentioned peace nics that gave Jimmy Carter one too.

Gore is a private lear jet riding alarmist milking the feel good money train to nirvana. Like many other "environmentally sensitive" hypocrites he flys around in private jets, has several gigantic mansions to his disposal, vacation homes scattered around the U.S. and abroad and as one of the largest shareholders of Google lives a life of luxury most couldn't begin to imagine. Yet his disputed fear mongering tells everyone else to walk to work, ride bicycles, turn down our thermostats.

He couldn't win an election but even a broken clock can be right twice a day. What a discredit to the Nobel system yet quite frankly not a surprise. Beat that little drum loud enough, make everyone feel guilty, add in plenty of photo opportunities and press coverage and you'll probably get one too.


RE: Good for him
By howtochooseausername on 10/12/2007 1:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He couldn't win an election


Gore did win the election. Do you forget the massive fraud in Florida?


RE: Good for him
By TwistyKat on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 1:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
lol it's the opening line of the movie for f&#k's sake!


RE: Good for him
By buckao on 10/12/2007 3:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
Fraud in Florida? What the hell are you talking about? They did a recount after the fact and Bush came up the winner, though not by much. What people are upset about is that Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election due to our electoral college system. This has nothing to do with fraud, this is how our system works. If you are trying to say that the system needs to be changed so that the Prez is elected purely on the basis of the popular vote, I'd agree with you, but don't call it fraud.

There was also some uncertainty in the reading of some of the ballots, due to hanging chads, un-punched holes, etc, but this is always the case, and happens in every election, in every state. When you are talking about millions of votes, all punched by hand, and counted by hand, there is going to be some uncertainty in the count. This is inevitable. To eliminate this, districts in Florida (I live in FL, by the way) started switching to electronic machines, but now everyone is complaining and wants to go back to paper ballots. The old people down here say the machines confuse them. Well, if you can't figure out a touch screen voting machine, maybe you're too stupid or senile to vote, anyway.


RE: Good for him
By Dactyl on 10/12/2007 4:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
They did a recount after the fact and Bush came up the winner, though not by much

Sort of. The recount, which was done by a media consortium including the New York Times (so it's probably not biased in favor of Bush, in fact it probably wasn't biased at all), found that:

1: if the Supreme Court had not stopped the recount, Bush would still have won

2: if a single, uniform standard (ANY uniform standard) had been used for all of Florida's counties, Gore would have won.

The funny thing was, it was Bush who complained to stop the recount because Florida wasn't using a single standard. Al Gore didn't want to use a single standard.

Plenty of irony to go around. If Gore had been principled enough to demand a single standard for the whole state, he might have been president. If the Supreme Court hadn't tarnished its credibility by stopping the recount, the result would be the same.


RE: Good for him
By Hacp on 10/16/2007 3:35:53 AM , Rating: 2
He buys carbon credits to offset his carbon use.


RE: Good for him
By dl429 on 10/12/2007 1:02:42 PM , Rating: 4
I have personally seen enough death and enough people hurt over economic control of fossil fuels to last two lifetimes. The United States has been at war in Iraq longer than we were in WWII. We're there because the region has oil and oil is vital to our economic security. Without oil EVERYTHING stops. There will be no fraternity between nations and standing armies will never rest when control of the last oil reserves is on the line. Oil is a finite resource and will eventually be exhausted. You want to specualte to what lengths different nations will go to control the last of it? Eliminating dependency of fossil fuels will do more to bring peace than anything else in the world including "spreading democracy".


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 1:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
I personally don't find the Iraqi oil argument very persuasive. Iraqi oil always has, and always will, find its way to market, since the Iraqi people directly depend on the associated income flow for their livelihood.

Furthermore, while Iraq is a significant source of oil, it is only one of a large number of countries that provide oil to the market. Therefore, I don't see how any kind of argument can be made that going to war in Iraq is necessary to ensure our supply of oil from that particular country.


RE: Good for him
By jacarte8 on 10/12/2007 2:27:25 PM , Rating: 1
Well then why are we in Iraq? Because of the humanitarian strife there? What about the entire continent of Africa?

No, we're not there to forcibly take the oil, but we're there to secure our interest in the oil rich nations all around that region.

I agree that it's misguided to be in Iraq for the purpose of securing our access to oil as a whole, but that's 100% the entire reason. It's ironic because if we'd spent the Trillion or so dollars and hundreds of thousands of people working toward a better energy solution, we'd be totally free from the NEED to depend on foreign countries like this.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By Ringold on 10/12/2007 3:40:26 PM , Rating: 3
Put down the liberal Kool-Aid, and ponder.

Lets say that you are correct with you 200 year old logic and we must forcibly "protect" such resources; ie, that if we're not there, then Iraq will not sell us their oil.

Lets also say that there are only four economic groups in the world. Iraq, the US, a the non-Iraq net oil exporting world, and a non-US bloc.

US demand: 10 barrels. Non-US bloc demand: 10 barrels.
Iraq supply: 10 barrels. Non-Iraq supply: 10 barrels.

Now watch the free market in action! Iraq refuses to sell us any more oil, and previously lets us say we got all of it from them and now for the moment have none. The market immediately switches around such that we now get our 10 barrels from countries with less a stick up their ass and non-US bloc now get their oil from Iraq.

In other words, as long as the oil continues to flow out of Iraq, it doesn't in fact matter who runs Iraq nor who they sell it to. Massive self-interest insures that Iraq will, in fact, continue to export oil.

Only logical conclusion? Whatever we may be there for (a family vendetta is a far easier position to hold), it's tin-hat talk to think it's for oil. I hope my elementary school representation of trade 0.101 was simple enough.


RE: Good for him
By A5un on 10/14/2007 12:42:02 AM , Rating: 3
Who else sells oil?

quote:
Canada (1.797 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.469 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.434 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.167 million barrels per day), Nigeria (0.890 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Algeria (0.520 million barrels per day), Iraq (0.460 million barrels per day), Angola (0.392 million barrels per day), Colombia (0.207 million barrels per day), and Kuwait (0.197 million barrels per day.


Well that was the figure for July 2007 from http://www.eia.doe.gov

Seeing that, we've pretty much got a deal with all oil producing countries. Sure the 0.46 million barrels a day demand from Iraq may eventually be distributed among all the other sources, but that's no guarantee. It's not like these oil-producing countries aren't already selling nearly at their maximum potential. Even if we manage to cover up the deficit, a delay to do so for just one week can cause serious damage to our reserve, which will require us to get even more oil from other source...etc. Your representation of trade is just elementary to not include time as a factor.

So yes, we're there in Iraq for oil ultimately. Sure we'd like to see the Talibans go away for good, but ultimately that's to contain the threats that Taliban brings to Iraq and their potential to influence. Like you said, self-interest will keep Iraq selling oil. But a Taliba-ruled Iraq will not sell oil to us in their self-interest, because their self-interest is to destroy us. It'd rather starve. And again, like you said, other countries will jump at this chance to increase their oil supply due to, again, self-interest. Yep, that's free market, too.

While getting rid of Hussein as a good thing, but we shouldn't have been the ones doing it. We should have given support to Iraqis to overthrow Hussein on their own, establish a government on their own, and live on their own - to not to have to worry about if they're gonna run into Blackwater contractors and get shot for the slightest suspicion of being a terrorist because Blackwater is exempt to all laws...


RE: Good for him
By sinful on 10/14/2007 4:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Put down the conservative kool aid and ponder this:

It's not just an issue of "oh noes we want 10 barrels and they'll only sell us 9",
it's an issue of "we could have bought our 10 barrels from ANYWHERE and gotten a good price, but now we are FORCED to buy 10 barrels from ONE source.

The non-US bloc demand can buy their 10 barrels from EITHER the Iraq Supply or the Non-Iraq supply. Your basic laws of economics say they're going to buy from the CHEAPEST - thus, they might want to buy ALL Non-US Bloc demand.
This does, in fact, leave the US with zero barrels to buy.

Your scenario basically says "Oh, other countries will pay more just out of the kindness of their heart to buy the oil that the US can't purchase" in some sort of distorted arrangement for the exclusive benefit of the US.
Why exactly are they going to do this again?

A more accurate version of your scenario would note the price of oil being heavily bid up, and the US having to pay artificially high prices to secure the 10 barrels for their exclusive use vs. the other countries that aren't restricted.

Conservates think it's just a matter of "running out of oil" which is rather stupid -- it's more of an issue of "how much are you willing to pay for it".

Keep in mind that gasoline that costs $7/gallon is going to have a MAJOR impact on the US economy. In fact, if gasoline is priced high enough, it is effectively "unavailable" to large groups. Thus, just because they can go down to the store and buy it doesn't mean it is economical to do so.

*THIS* is the problem.

You are right that the free market will guarantee we will have gasoline, but you totally ignore that the free market would dictate we're going to pay a premium to do so, and the quantity of that premium could have a major adverse impact on our entire economy.
(given how integral energy is to our economy)


RE: Good for him
By rninneman on 10/14/2007 5:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously know next to nothing about economics.

If you were right that we went in to protect our oil prices, why is crude 3 times what it was before the war?

Output capacity of oil producing nations is not the problem; refining capacity is. If even one more oil refinery was built in the US, crude prices would begin to decline. But since no congressmen will sign off on a refinery being built in his district because it would be political suicide, there hasn't been a refinery built in the US since the 1970s! Yeah , it's been 30 years and while refining capacity is basically the same, demand has continued to grow.

Now, I can't finish economics 101 for you, but next time try learning about the issue rather than spouting liberal rhetoric.


RE: Good for him
By sinful on 10/14/2007 6:12:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you were right that we went in to protect our oil prices, why is crude 3 times what it was before the war?


Just because you increase supply does not mean that demand has remained constant. If the world produces an extra 1 million barrels/unit time, and China announces they want to buy an extra 5 million barrels of oil/unit time, price is going to go up DESPITE increasing supply.

Additionally, you're focusing on short term consequences, as opposed to long term consequences.

quote:
Output capacity of oil producing nations is not the problem; refining capacity is.

A very good SHORT TERM analysis of the gasoline market. But what about long term?

Also, going to war to secure a source of oil doesn't automatically mean success. It's somewhat debatable whether or not you could consider Iraq "secure" or not, so obviously the success of the plan to secure additional oil is going to be related to the success of the actual war.

Obviously since we've got massive troop deployments over there currently, it's not exactly as secure as what was probably hoped/planned. Thus, the positive benefits aren't going to be as good as hoped/planned either.

Obviously, if Iraq was stabilized tomorrow and became a bastion of stability, US companies would be building over there like crazy to increase output. While I'm sure US companies are building over there now, obviously it takes a while to bring up Iraq's entire war-torn infrastructure up to speed.

quote:
even one more oil refinery was built in the US, crude prices would begin to decline.


Oil refineries take crude oil as an INPUT. The OUTPUT of oil refineries is gasoline, etc.
Building more refineries might reduce the cost of their OUTPUTS (gasoline), but it would not have a positive impact on the prices of their INPUTS (crude oil).

You're saying "Increasing demand for crude oil is magically going to lower the price of the supply of crude oil, despite the supply of crude oil remaining consant".

You fail.

quote:
Now, I can't finish economics 101 for you, but next time try learning about the issue rather than spouting liberal rhetoric.

It's understandable why you can't finish economics 101 for me, because you can't seem to finish it yourself.

If I'm spouting "liberal rhetoric", it seems obvious you are spouting "conservative ignorance".


RE: Good for him
By dl429 on 10/12/2007 8:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
By removing saddam hussein and posting up a pro-American government, US oil companies could have had first dibbs on developing untapped oil fields. Our oil companies could have told OPEC to shove their prices up their ass. Not to mention Saudi Arabia the number 1 oil producer in the world is very unstable. The pro-American royal family is teneously holding control. If they were to fall our economy is in deep trouble. Unless we have Iraq.


RE: Good for him
By ebakke on 10/16/2007 12:34:15 AM , Rating: 2
Do you have any facts to back up your claims? What oil fields were tapped by US companies following the invasion? What company is gaining access to this oil, and how much revenues have they received from it?

Unless you have some facts, your statement is just worthless noise.


RE: Good for him
By Frallan on 10/15/2007 7:08:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well if you think that oil is important - try this on for size:

Water
Land
Breathable (moderatly clean) Air

Because once there is more in one place in the worls and none in another we will have wars that makes the WWI and WWII look like childrens games. If this happens due to GW or for some other reason is unimportant war it will be.

Now as i understand it AG got the price for reducing the risc of this war by working against GW. Other then that the Norwegian Nobel Commitee belives in GW there are few things that are to be understood from this choise.

Mit freundliche Grüsse
/F


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 10:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
Gore didn't make any progress in resolving any issues that face mankind. Even if global warming is completely human-caused, what has he accomplished? Nothing.

He only furthered his own celebrity, possible political ambitions, and increased the amount of money he can charge for giving speeches. He acts modest, and he should be, since he doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize any more than you or I do.


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 11:08:20 AM , Rating: 2
It seems you expect too much out of people. By your standards, probably no one could ever win the Nobel peace prize.

Lets take other nominees. How about Lech Walensa? What did he do that was so different from Gore that would make him deserve the peace prize? He was a spokeperson for the Solidarity movement, just like Gore was pretty much accepted as the spokeperson for battling global warming. That's all there's to it really. Do you think these people could have achieved what they did without thousands of other people helping them out?

Gore + UN receiving the peace prize is great for all the scientists who have also devoted their life to figuring this out. This is what they have worked for - they alerted the world that we're doing somethig wrong. The peace prize is the Nobel foundation's support of their work.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 11:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And guess what, most of those people who did real humanitarian efforts didn't make a cent off it either.

Ha! Sorry, but that's too funny. I think you should take another look at the people who won the prize. I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 11:21:40 AM , Rating: 1
Ah yeah I missed the part where Mother Teresa had a three-episode guest appearance on "The Office." Good heads up.


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 11:29:55 AM , Rating: 2
Nah, you didn't miss it. You did miss the 100 or so other laureates.

But hey, 1 out of 100 isn't bad.


RE: Good for him
By Spuke on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good for him
By jskirwin on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By porkpie on 10/12/2007 12:04:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Gore + UN receiving the peace prize is great for all the scientists who have also devoted their life to figuring this out
"All those scientists" haven't figured out anything yet, other than the climate changes constantly, and we still can't predict why, when, or how much. And even the scientists who support GW the most call Gore a dangerous alarmist who distorts their own work.

Why weren't any of those scientists chosen for this award?


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By porkpie on 10/12/2007 12:40:20 PM , Rating: 4
Read again why the Peace Prize exists, and who its supposed to be awarded to:
quote:
"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 tell me why a guy who got rich off of a movie proven scentifically inaccurate deserves this award?


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 12:59:23 PM , Rating: 3
I know why the peace prize exists, but you don't seem to realize that the Nobel Prizes have evolved since Nobel's will. Did you know that there was no such thing as a Nobel Prize in economics until the 1960s? Should we not have one? Time change, and the Nobel Prize as changed as well. There's no reason to quote Nobel's will since it has evolved over the last 100+ years.
quote:
Now tell me why a guy who got rich off of a movie

He didn't get rich off the movie. Its probably an extremely small portion of his wealth.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 2:23:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
He didn't get rich off the movie.

How much do you think he got paid, so far, for that movie?


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 2:26:58 PM , Rating: 1
Does it matter?

He was insanely rich before the movie came out. If Bill Gates won $500 million in PowerBall, it'd be just as silly to claim he got rich from PowerBall winnings.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 2:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it does matter, at least in terms of the argument the OP was making. You are arguing semantics about whether he "got rich" off the movie or not, but the point the OP made is that he made a lot of money off the movie, which I believe to be true.


RE: Good for him
By Murst on 10/12/2007 3:11:23 PM , Rating: 5
Since you claim it matters, Gore's total earnings from the movie is $0.
quote:
Tipper and I are devoting 100 percent of [our] profits from the movie and the book to a new bipartisan educational campaign that will run advertising and will be a presence in the mass media, to continue lifting this urgent crisis up for people to see and focus on.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/100222...

Again, what difference does it make? Now that you know he's not making money from it, does it change your view on Al Gore?


RE: Good for him
By deeznuts on 10/12/2007 3:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, what difference does it make? Now that you know he's not making money from it, does it change your view on Al Gore?


Nope, not until he rides at least commercial, stops using exorbitant amounts of electricity in his homes, rides a bike everywhere he can, etc.

Until then he's a fraud, plain and simple.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 11:35:05 AM , Rating: 3
"Gore didn't make any progress in resolving any issues that face mankind. Even if global warming is completely human-caused, what has he accomplished? Nothing."

Did you even read the article or the reasons why the Nobel comittee gave him the honor (BTW- this is not an uneducated or ignorant bunch)? "the Nobel Peace Prize committee showered him with praise for his work promoting climate awareness and climate research."

He did do that, and like it or not its a good thing.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 11:41:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's only a good thing if his conclusion is correct. If not, then it is just alarmist propaganda. And the jury's still out on that, e.g., many of the "facts" he states in the movie have already been clearly disproven.


RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 12:26:39 PM , Rating: 1
So we shouldn't try to reduce emissions until all of the science is in? Come on, it doesn't take a global catastrophe to know that even breathing exhaust is bad, and that in most major metropolitan areas smog is so think you cant clearly see the nearby hills without the fuzzy air in the way.

It also doesn't take a political science major to understand that we need to decrease our oil consumption to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (for our ecomomy, environment and future of both).

The only thing Gore is getting the honor for is spreading awareness. He did do that to alot of people that were otherwise unaware.


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We should reduce emissions up until the point of taking on huge economic costs

Let's also keep in mind that reducing CFCs is different than reducing something like CO2. I'm all for the former, but let's at least figure out if human-generate CO2 is doomsday before we destory the world economies first.


RE: Good for him
By sinful on 10/14/2007 5:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm all for the former, but let's at least figure out if human-generate CO2 is doomsday before we destory the world economies first.


The problem is that not doing anything might result in destroying the world economies too.

This is one of the most convincing videos of the debate of global warming:
http://my.break.com/content/view.aspx?ContentID=38...


RE: Good for him
By retrospooty on 10/12/2007 12:48:30 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed, lets focus on today, but like I said. The honor was for spreading awareness.

For the sake of argument, lets disregard the subject of global warming for now... The dependency on foreign oil is a problem that exists today and will be a problem in the very near future, maybe 10-20 years, maybe a bit more. Disagree??? check the stock market, consumer confidence and all major financial indexes each time Opec raises the price on us. If we don't free ourselves from this dependency, when the oil reserves run low and Opec reduces output, the entire world's economy will collapse, causing a massive worldwide depression.

Smog is also an issue in many major cities today. We have regular smog alerts where elderly and people with breathing disorders like athsma are ordered to stay indoors. Even normal healthy people are urged to not go outside unless absolutely neccesary. This is in the SF bay area, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, and many others as well.

You can say global warming is just a "theory" and I agree with that, its not likely going to hurt us much (unless you own beachfront property - LOL) but these other issues are real, and are real today. Spreading social awareness and the concept of conservation is a good thing and if you disagree with that, you have major issues.


RE: Good for him
By howtochooseausername on 10/12/2007 1:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We should reduce emissions up until the point of taking on huge economic costs


That is a reasonable statement, but the fact is most industries are lothed to do anything extra if they don't have to. Reducing emissions is not costly. That's just a lie. There are many technologies available today that not only reduce emissions but improve efficiencies. I'm specifically talking about coal generating plants. Many companies don't want to implement improvements because there is more profit in selling expensive electricity.

Coal gets little in way of subsidies. But Nuclear gets huge subsidies, and you can sell the electricity for more $/KWh.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 1:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But Nuclear gets huge subsidies, and you can sell the electricity for more $/KWh.

I must have missed that memo. Coal doesn't get subsidies, because the entire midwest sits on the largest coal deposit in the world.

Of course if you replaced Nuclear with ethanol, then I'd agree with what you're saying exactly.


RE: Good for him
By howtochooseausername on 10/12/2007 1:45:18 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed


RE: Good for him
By Hoser McMoose on 10/12/2007 2:46:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Coal gets little in way of subsidies. But Nuclear gets huge subsidies, and you can sell the electricity for more $/KWh.

Coal's subsidies are rather hidden, but they are ENORMOUS. Coal power plants have been estimated to cost the U.S. anywhere from $50B to $160B dollars per year in health care costs alone! That's money that ordinary citizens covering through either their medical insurance, increased hospital fees or through their taxes (approximately 45-50% of all U.S. health spending comes from taxes). That along is a subsidy that dwarfs all other electricity subsidies combined.

There are additional hidden subsidies for coal in the form of agricultural subsidies which are helping to make up for the reduced crop output of farmers due to pollution from coal plants. Obscure and hard to measure, but it's also in the billions of dollars per year. Even silly little things like window cleaning costs are increased due to air pollution from coal.

Cleaning up the waste from coal power is a tremendously expensive task that is totally subsidized, while for nuclear power the plants pay for cleaning up their own waste. If coal power plants had to pay to deal with their own waste then the cost of coal would be MUCH higher than that of nuclear and possibly even higher than that of wind power.


RE: Good for him
By A5un on 10/14/2007 12:53:23 AM , Rating: 2
About time someone looked at the real picture.


RE: Good for him
By Frallan on 10/15/2007 7:34:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yes lets wait til all scientists are aboar...

The tobacco conglomerate still produced scientific papers showing that smoking wasn't harming you until a couple of years ago...

If we were to wait that long AND GW is true and happening we will be a race on its way to extinction together with a large part of the ecosphere...


RE: Good for him
By Procurion on 10/12/2007 12:48:02 PM , Rating: 3
Just because people argue that the science isn't bullet-proof doesn't mean that we aren't concerned about GW. What scares a lot of us is that in our own conceited way, humanity thinks they can change the earth's environment by rolling back the world to a pre-industrial state. Absolute horseshit.

There are how many more people in the world now? The very person identified as the lead man for the move produces more greenhouse gas a year than the output of 50 average families?

My thought is that instead of requiring everyone to use OLPC hand-cranked laptops to save the world, do something smart. Take the untold trillions of dollars we might spend to MAYBE influence the temperatures by one degree, and use the money and technology to develop solar, wind, and other energy sources so that the pollution stops. What a novel idea!

Instead, all the rabid "we're killing the world" followers want everyone to revert to the good old days..LOL-how much pollution do you think there would be if billions of people were burning wood for cooking, lighting and heating? Methane gas produced by the horses we'd be riding? Use technology to develop clean energy sources-get started today and quit wringing your hands while screaming "the sky is falling!"


RE: Good for him
By hrah20 on 10/12/2007 3:26:11 PM , Rating: 1
I think he would have been a very good president


RE: Good for him
By rcc on 10/12/2007 3:37:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It is also awarded for resolving issues that face mankind.


Cool!! So the issue is resolved now? No more AGW, and we can get on with our lives??

Perhaps not.


RE: Good for him
By semo on 10/12/2007 10:55:07 AM , Rating: 5
climate change threatens resources. anything that prevents conflict arising from dwindling resources therefore brings peace.

i think that's the general idea


RE: Good for him
By PresidentThomasJefferson on 10/14/2007 12:41:32 AM , Rating: 1
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Questionable Quotes: Internet of Lies

Internet of Lies

Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.
Status:False.

Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/..." TARGET=cnn>interview</A> with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999.

When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the

technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings — the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea.

(To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean exactly the same thing, we have to ask why, then, the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet, even though he never used that word, and transcripts of what he actually said were readily available.)

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement. "


RE: Good for him
By McTwist on 10/15/2007 12:31:56 PM , Rating: 2
Can we stop the bold?


RE: Good for him
By TomZ on 10/12/2007 10:51:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
He's devoted a lot of his life to this. Even his critics would probably agree that living in a world with less pollution is not a bad thing.

True, but someone needs to inform Gore that CO2 is not a pollutant. He doesn't seem to grasp that point.


RE: Good for him
By glenn8 on 10/12/2007 11:42:20 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe not, but a lot of the major contributors to CO2 cause other pollutants, so reducing the use of one will essentially reduce the other.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 11:59:54 AM , Rating: 2
Or we could just eliminate the other pollutants and skip the CO2 nonsense.


RE: Good for him
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:03:43 PM , Rating: 3
Seeing as how CO2 emissions are linked to fossil fuels, and that our fossil fuel dependency - forgetting about global warming even - is a root cause of our precarious geopolitical situation at this time, I'd love to hear why you think efforts to curb fossil fuel dependency are a bad idea.


RE: Good for him
By Hoser McMoose on 10/12/2007 12:25:12 PM , Rating: 3
The biggest source of CO2 emissions (and pollution) in North America comes from burning coal. That coal is predominantly mined within the U.S. If you want to cut either air pollution or GHG emissions than coal power plants have to be the top priority, and that's going to do nothing for the politics of oil.

In fact, some have suggested replacing coal with natural gas (great for reducing pollution, reasonably good for reducing GHG emissions, potentially bad for cost though). This will actually make the political side of things worse as natural gas has already peaked in North America with the main new sources for it being Russia and Iran.


RE: Good for him
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:38:37 PM , Rating: 3
But there's a common interest in oil, is there not? I think both environmentalists and forward-thinking policy makers alike can see the benefits there. There's no need for coal to be the first target, simply because it is the biggest, correct? But whatever your views on coal itself, the fact is that it behooves the US to develop along alternative lines anyway moving forward, as coal is not an infinite resource to begin with.

First oil, then coal, all the while developing alternative fuel infrastructure which both a) puts the US in a position of technology leadership and b) separates our fuel cycle from geopolitical concerns.

Certainly you can't disagree with this approach.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
Or we could just go nuclear, which has about a snowball's chance in hell of working as it doesn't appease Big Oil, Big Corn or Big Coal/Shale.

Yet if you wanted to eliminate CO2 and any other GHG nuclear is the only economic alternative.


RE: Good for him
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:44:57 PM , Rating: 3
Nuclear is of course a part of what I am suggesting. (Though there are very real and costly waste disposal concerns)

And with the US set to begin building plants again, I think it's a step in the right direction. But it doesn't do anything to shift our dependence on foreign oil, something that needs to be addressed either way.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:46:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nuclear is of course a part of what I am suggesting

Then I am glad we agree on something.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 12:46:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
There's no need for coal to be the first target, simply because it is the biggest, correct?

I'm not disagreeing with you on this, but I'd like to point out the coal power plants in Northern Illinois alone have been linked to thousands of deaths.

I don't have the link on hand, but the study was pretty solid as I used it for a research paper once.

That has nothing to do with CO2 and is a platform I can get behind. If The Inconvenient Truth was a movie just about cleaning up some of these dirty plants I'd be the first person to congratulate him on his Peace Prize.


RE: Good for him
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 12:48:36 PM , Rating: 3
There you go then, but that's the point.

There is no action against CO2 that does not hold ancillary benefits to the US elsewhere in either the economy, our health situation, or our global positioning. Which is why I can't understand the animosity folk hold towards CO2-related disucssions. Who cares why we're changing our fuel cycle, so long as we change it? There are a multitude of potential reasons to do so.


RE: Good for him
By James Holden on 10/12/2007 1:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who cares why we're changing our fuel cycle, so long as we change it?


So the end justifies the means? Let's all believe a big lie because the auxiliary benefits are worth it?

I spent a lot of time in Europe in my teens and 20s. I don't like where your train of thought is going.


RE: Good for him
By clovell on 10/12/2007 1:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
If the ancillary benefits are so great, then push them, not the straw man. The people who don't just take the politicans' word for would have much less animosity towards a straight-forward approach.


RE: Good for him
By Carl B on 10/12/2007 2:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
Uh... well, I don't think they're "lies" like you two do. I'm just saying there's a worthwhile cause here no matter what banner it flies under. And yes, if global warming panic is what is required to spur this action, whether you believe it or not, you should be grateful that the action is being spurred. Because it's certainly not actuating based on the geopolitical merits right now.


RE: Good for him
By clovell on 10/12/2007 4:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
To say to policticians that it's okay to manufacture hysteria over potential issues so long as your ends justify your means is playing with fire.

I suppose that's just going to remain a difference of opinion between us, Carl. Have a good weekend!


RE: Good for him
By Hoser McMoose on 10/12/2007 3:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
The thing with coal vs. oil is that coal is a bigger source of both pollution and greenhouses gases AND it's also an easier problem to fix. We already have solutions for a) cleaning up coal (scrubbers, they do nothing for GHG but greatly reduce pollution) and eliminating coal (nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, etc.).

Oil is a much tougher problem to fix, at least for transportation uses. I'm all for trying to find alternatives here, but the problem is that oil just works so darn well that it's tough for most alternatives to compete, either economically or technically. One thing that would help would be to do more full costing of oil, taking into account the associated health costs as well as the diplomatic and military costs involved. If we did this then we would see that getting a gallon of gasoline really costs us a LOT more than the $3 we pay at the pump. However even at that it's not a full solution. Certainly ethanol from corn has more then it's share of problems, not the least of which being that it requires huge amounts of natural gas to grow which puts us right back in the same situation we were before (only instead of depending on Saudi Arabia and Canada for their oil, the U.S. will be depending on Iran and Russia for their natural gas).

As I said, oil is still a concern, but coal is a more immediate one in my mind.


RE: Good for him
By Hoser McMoose on 10/12/2007 12:18:31 PM , Rating: 4
That is not entirely true. The two sometimes (not always) come from the same source, but the solution for these problems is often quite different.

Case in point: Catalytic converters on our vehicles. These are designed to convert pollutants such as CO, NOx, unburnt hydrocarbons, etc. into CO2. Not only does the reduction in pollutants result in an increase in CO2, but also catalytic converters cause vehicles to be less efficient and burn more gasoline, creating yet more CO2.

Carbon sequestration results in the opposite. Because sequestration tends to really hurt the efficiency of a system, more fuel needs to be burned. If all else is equal that means more pollution. The carbon gets sequestered, reducing CO2, but the pollution does not.

So, which is more important, pollution or global warming? Well most estimates place the number of people killed every year from air pollution in the hundreds of thousands, if not th