Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Fredrik

Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

Recommended Posts

Disgraceful.

Might as well give the Peace Prize to next year's Eurovision winner. It would do just as good.

Share this post


Link to post

just speaks to how meaningless the nobel peace prize is....

Share this post


Link to post
Csonicgo said:

Disgraceful.


Any paticular reason why? Face it, he has done some good work.

Share this post


Link to post
EANB said:

Any paticular reason why? Face it, he has done some good work.


The scientists that he draws from have done good work. While his presentations have helped make the subject approachable to the laymen (though the conference held earlier this year seems to have been what really sparked the new anti-Global Warming movement), I don't think a glorified powerpoint presentation is Nobel Prize material.

Share this post


Link to post

exp(x) said:
Meh, nothing is worse than Kissinger's peace prize.

Kissinger's strategies involved (hundreds of?) thousands of dead to bombing in the far east, and during the period was given the prize he was working with the CIA to back and help prepare numerous military coup attempts around the world.

The '73 prize itself seems a politically charged attempt to help bring the east and the west together, but also a somewhat shallow and hasty gesture.

EANB said:
Face it, he has done some good work.

Even though it's not directly related to the shared prize (which is for pointing out global warming), his position against pre-emptive action and the Iraq invasion has been pretty solid and deserved more attention than it got.

Share this post


Link to post
EANB said:

Any paticular reason why? Face it, he has done some good work.


What on earth has climate change have to do with peace? Acceptance that we're screwed? The ice is melting at an alarming rate, and to stop emissions now (which would be impossible) wouldn't stop this train! it might make the inpending rape a little less painful, if we're lucky. Getting China to cut its pollution, which is undoubtedly the worst I have ever seen in the 21st century, will be a massive task. Nevertheless Al Gore was the messenger, and I shouldn't be shooting him. If I were him, I'd be donating that money to something to help the environment.

However, the Prize has lost its meaning anyway, we all know that. Even Arafat, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose wonderful work shows today in the form of... bombs, won this prize. Then again, Nobel invented Dynamite, which promotes peace by blowing shit up, so maybe I'm not looking at this in the right angle.

All my life I considered that the prize would go to people that were actively fighting for peace directly, like the Monks in Burma, who are being beaten, tortured and killed for standing up against evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Csonicgo said:

Then again, Nobel invented Dynamite, which promotes peace by blowing shit up, so maybe I'm not looking at this in the right angle.


Nobel invented dynamite for construction, not war. He was so ashamed of what his invention had done he created the prize to glorify those who used their knowledge to better the world.

No matter how pessimistic you are, to deny that Gore has tried to improve the world is unrealistic and pompous.

Yeah but whateva.

Share this post


Link to post

Well I don't see what it has to do with peace (isn't there like an Environment Prize?), but good on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Csonicgo said:

All my life I considered that the prize would go to people that were actively fighting for peace directly, like the Monks in Burma, who are being beaten, tortured and killed for standing up against evil.


Actually, I heard an interesting report about Buddhism is Burma and how that monks were actually helping to keep the Junta in power. The government there donates large amounts of money/material to the temples and in turn the monks tell the populace that "Life is suffering, and you cannot free yourself in this life from suffering. Only in death will you find peace." etc. etc. to keep the subjects quiet and obediant.

Share this post


Link to post
Bank said:

Nobel invented dynamite for construction


Yes, that and coal mining. Ouch.


Yes, he has tried to help the world somewhat. Then again, so have many other people that deserve the prize more but lack the "celebrity" status to be considered.

Share this post


Link to post

Bit of an odd fit for the Nobel peace prize, but if it helps hammer home the importance of the global warming issue just a bit more, it can only be a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post

The prize is actually shared between the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore, something that a few posters seem to have missed.

Csonicgo said:

Yes, that and coal mining. Ouch.

Alfred Nobel invented dynamite in 1866. I'm sure he caused quite an uproar among the environmentalists of the time for helping the backwards coal industry instead of focusing on renewable resources like spermaceti.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

What?


Sarcasm, Fraggle.


Also, Spermaceti is Cetyl alcohol, which was replaced by palmitate- which, was also used in war. Damn.

Share this post


Link to post

Danarchy said:
Well I don't see what it has to do with peace

Perhaps people are starting to understand that peace revolves around much more than just a present or evident lack of the use of weapons, down to what causes that directly. Should the environment deteriorate to the degree global warming theories indicate, war and violence will spread like the plague.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

Perhaps people are starting to understand that peace revolves around much more than just a present or evident lack of the use of weapons, down to what causes that directly. Should the environment deteriorate to the degree global warming theories indicate, war and violence will spread like the plague.


I don't see the connection myself, at least not from the standpoint of history thusfar. Did people get along any better before the industrial revolution? Would it be any different if the problem of global warming and a host of other environmental issues were suddenly solved? No! The reason there has never been nor ever will be world peace is because human beings live on earth. There are always going to be people in the world who feel the need to proclaim that their dick is bigger than everybody else's and then dare somebody to disagree.

As to Al Gore winning the Nobel prize, that was decided on the day of his nomination. What else can you say? Because in spite of all the efforts to draw the correlation between stumping for the environment and promoting world peace, I fail to see it.

Share this post


Link to post

Marco said:
I don't see the connection myself, at least not from the standpoint of history thusfar.

History definitely tells you how finite resources (especially fertile land and fresh water supplies, in the case of severe global warming) will cause peoples to wage war on each other for their possession. Displaced populations would be forced to stuggle for better land, or be slaughtered or marginalized by those in better off areas. It's pretty simple; the less there is for everybody, the more we'll have to fight for it.

As you're implying, it already happens and has happened throughout history. It would just be worse than it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Marco said:

I don't see the connection myself, at least not from the standpoint of history thusfar. Did people get along any better before the industrial revolution? Would it be any different if the problem of global warming and a host of other environmental issues were suddenly solved? No! The reason there has never been nor ever will be world peace is because human beings live on earth. There are always going to be people in the world who feel the need to proclaim that their dick is bigger than everybody else's and then dare somebody to disagree.

As to Al Gore winning the Nobel prize, that was decided on the day of his nomination. What else can you say? Because in spite of all the efforts to draw the correlation between stumping for the environment and promoting world peace, I fail to see it.


Perhaps they're trying to establish a connection that wasn't there before. Although it's fair to say that human beings will always find some excuse to segregate themselves into a group and attack another group, this is an issue that people need to put aside their petty differences and work together on (cheesy as it sounds).


Or, to think of it another way, the two biggest threats to humanity are:

a) Humanity itself
and
b) Climate change (even though it's a consequence of A, but ignore that for a minute)

If the world suddenly did see sense and radically altered the way things are, we could effectively kill two birds with one stone and achieve both peace and a solution to global warming. Unless the skeptics are right and it's too late already, or if there's some sort of global conflict that kills us all long before nature does. Come to think of it, both are quite probable, in which case we're screwed anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

The relation between desertification, famine and natural disasters to war, violence or other sorts of social turmoil isn't new. It's been happening since the stone age. Here's an article that quotes policy makers and institutions noting it, and here's something based on research in Africa, for example.

Heh, maybe the prize could also be seen an ironic gesture; "gee, if we can't get along, at least let's try to keep the planet in shape... okay?"

Share this post


Link to post

I see it more as the international community's slap in the face to those who voted for George W. Bush, those who literally picked the deserter over the Nobel prize laureate.

Well, serves them right.

Share this post


Link to post
Fredrik said:

Proved wrong as in... the scientists underestimated?
"You can see the predictions don't match reality very well.

The reality is much, MUCH worse than the scientific consensus predicted. The arctic ice cap is melting decades faster than expected. DECADES.

The "skeptics" implied there are only two possibilities: either the scientific consensus is right, or global warming is not as bad as the scientists think."
That sir, means that you are a skeptic
... which means that you are a heretic
... which means that you are ... very, very wrong.

What happens when the Antarctic ice melts? The ocean level rises. Which means that the ocean will rise. You remember what Katrina did to New Orleans? Imagine that to every low lying coastal area. And imagine that the water level won't go down. Granted that it won't happen in the matter of days, we will only see the beginning of the consequences of our actions.

Lets say that the global average temperature is increasing by .5% every year. After 100 years, the average temperature will have raised by 60%.

Well thats it for now. I may come back later with more educated face slapping.

Share this post


Link to post
spank said:

I see it more as the international community's slap in the face to those who voted for George W. Bush, those who literally picked the deserter over the Nobel prize laureate.

IIRC George W. Bush was nominated for a peace prize a couple years ago. I don't know who the fuck nominated him, but pretty much everyone was appalled by it.

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×