Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

[ken0042]

I think the one thing we can all agree upon is that another thread on CP will not solve the Global Warming debate.

I for one do think the topic at hand is interesting; the issue of Gore winning the Peace Prize. I also hear last night on Leno that Gore might try running for President again if he wins.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, noble peace-loving men like Yasser Arrafat!

Personally, I think natural resources and oil have caused many a war this century. Moving away from these things will do a lot for peace down the line. Good for Al...at least he's trying to contribute something positive to this earth...and not just making excuses for our current lifestyle like most politicians and business leaders out there.

He is not doing this for the good of the Earth. He buys carbon credits from a company that HE owns.

And like ken said, this is all for another run at the White house.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, noble peace-loving men like Yasser Arrafat!

Personally, I think natural resources and oil have caused many a war this century. Moving away from these things will do a lot for peace down the line. Good for Al...at least he's trying to contribute something positive to this earth...and not just making excuses for our current lifestyle like most politicians and business leaders out there.

I was always against Arafat even getting a sniff at that prize.

Even if you move away from Oil, then people will fight over farm land to grow corn for Ethanol. Wind power will spark wars over windy areas, solar power will spark wars over higher areas near the equator.

Resource wars are always going to take place, so to me its a non issue as far pushing away from a reliance on Oil.

I guess whats soured me on Gore is that his life style certainly dosen't match his environmental policy position.

And going out and making speeches and making a movie that charges 13 dollars a showing are not Peace Prize worthy. He's hardly made the world come together as one and scream for Kyoto. He's accomplished very little imho.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I also don't think that the nobel peace prize should have been given to him in this case, he hasn't made an irrefutable argument, outside of going from town to town and collecting speaking fee's he hasn't done anything extra-ordinary.

In otherwords I question his impact, especially when you have to pay to see his movie or earn it.

If there was a year that no peace prize was awarded, this would be it.

It seems like a popularity vote to me.

I'll have to disagree. His name is synonymous with global warming. I think most people were aware of the two words, "global warming" before his activism and movie, but that's about it. They didn't really understand what it meant and the causes behind it. Is there another name that comes to mind when ones thinks of global warming? Not really.

But like you I don't really understand why he got this Nobel Prize. And I recognize his impact as being very influential, but this sounds like a case of "we would like acknowledge Al Gore's achievement of awareness, but we don't exactly have a category for him."

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

He is not doing this for the good of the Earth. He buys carbon credits from a company that HE owns.

And like ken said, this is all for another run at the White house.

Al Gore has been on the environmentalist band-wagon all his life. That's quite a ruse to put on just to earn a few extra bucks! That's dedication baby.

Also, Gore has stated over and over again he will not return to politics...so what exactly are you basing his return on. Fox News scare tactics?

The one sad thing is that people who hate Al Gore are now hating the concept of helping the environment...

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Also, Gore has stated over and over again he will not return to politics...so what exactly are you basing his return on.

As I said, I heard it on Jay Leno last night. So may not be anything.

And yes, sad as it may be, I get 80% of my news from either CP or Leno.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by ken0042

As I said, I heard it on Jay Leno last night. So may not be anything.

And yes, sad as it may be, I get 80% of my news from either CP or Leno.

The discussion on CP can be pretty good, but can we at least upgrade you to the Daily Show?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The one sad thing is that people who hate Al Gore are now hating the concept of helping the environment...

Thats bunk and you know it. My family dosen't agree with Gore's stance on Kyoto and Kyoto itself, and they've probably done more in terms of recycling, and using energy efficient lights, and reducing thier use of petroleum fuel then any Pro Gore advocate that I know.

I don't believe in Al Gore, or his stratgies, but I heavily recycle, reduce the use of energy in my home.

Just because you dislike Al Gore dosen't mean that you can't do the right thing.

I think following what could be a economic suicide pact to support a science that I don't believe is fully proven is pretty blind.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

And like ken said, this is all for another run at the White house.

Well--ken actually said that he heard it on Leno. I'm willing to go on record right now and say categorically that in my opinion Al Gore will not run for president in 2008. Or any other year for that matter. I'd be willing to make a nickname-type wager with you, if you want to make it interesting.

Was he doing it "for another run at the White House" when he became an environmental activist almost 40 years ago? I know some people don't like the guy, but let's keep it real: he's been involved in this issue for longer than most of us have been alive.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

He is not doing this for the good of the Earth. He buys carbon credits from a company that HE owns.

And like ken said, this is all for another run at the White house.

and there's another thing I really don't like. If you're Mr Climate Change, to hell with the carbon credit BS, make some actual lifestyle changes, then I might be more inclined to listen.

[getbak]

Is it safe to assume that he's the first person in history to win an Oscar, an Emmy (now there was a flimsy excuse to give him an award), and the Nobel Peace Prize all in the same year?

[mykalberta]

Congrats to Al Gore for winning this award. Hopefully he puts the award in the lock box and then only tells Tipper the combination.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Table 5

he and others? you mean 99% of the scientific community?

Just because global warming doesnt mesh with your belief system, doesn't mean it's not happening. You don't think the current ways of industry and living don't "directly effect you and I"? Stop dreaming.

The models don't exactly paint an accurate picture of how much temperature is rising or how much humans have to do with it. Half the weather stations in the world are not currently active, we have no way of telling how much temperature is really rising.

Not saying I don't think global warming is happening. A look at the NW passage this summer has me pretty convinced. My point is, we don't know nearly enough about what is happening.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by habernac

and there's another thing I really don't like. If you're Mr Climate Change, to hell with the carbon credit BS, make some actual lifestyle changes, then I might be more inclined to listen.

Yeah and until you play in the NHL I don't really care to listen to what you have to say about the Flames.

I don't really understand all this venom being spit about Al Gore. He made a bigger lifestyle change than anyone on this board. He is devoting all his time and money promoting awareness to global warming. That's certainly more impact than I could ever do with buying light bulbs and recycling my beer cans. He does a lot of travelling and a lot of speeches and meeting with dignitaries. And an unfortunate side effect is that he using more power than the average person. But his influence to helping the environment is far greater than the average person. I don't understand how he is suppose to do his job and not have the same footprint that he is making now. And at least he is offsetting his pollution, unlike the majority of the people out there.

[Stranger]

I am all for cutting greenhouse gases and trying to be more environmentally friendly. I try to recycle and turn off a light when I'm not in the room.

But I don't attribute any of what I do to Al Gore. He comes accross as someone who can talk the talk, but not walk the walk. He probably pollutes ten times what my family would in a year. From riding in private jets to cruising the town in limos to heating his 10,000 sq ft house, Al gore needs to do what he preaches. Sure he buys into companies that make green power, but wouldn't it make more sense to live sensibly and contribute to green companies than to live a life of excess and claim that because I spend a little extra money on green stocks that its okay for me to pollute. And then he tells me to bike to work and live in a straw house.

When Al Gore makes Tipper bike to work, carpools to his speeches and finally builds that straw house of his, I'll take him seriously.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Deal with what? The fact that he along with others have created a hysteria in the general public based on imcomplete facts and flawed "scientific experiments." These flawed experiments are dictating costly policies that directly effect you and I. No I will not deal with it.

You state this beauty, then follow it up with this...

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

All I am going to say is to read a paper by professor Tim Patterson of Carlton University. His papers are supported by many people in climate science. If you read it you will see that sunspot variations are primary cause of global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

Also there have been periods in history when the Earth's temperature has been higher than CO2 levels.

Tim Patterson, and his Natural Resources Stewardship Project, are well known shills for the petrochemical lobby north and south of the 49th. He and his collegues get substantial payments through this front organization and are paid to dismiss the accepted theory and promote other, less accepted (nee fringe), theories that have even less data supporting them. If that's who you have tied your beliefs to, you're being lead down the wrong path.

As distinguished American sociologist, Robert K. Merton stated about science, "there is no such thing as a scientific truth believed by one person and disbelieved by the rest of the scientific community; an idea becomes a truth only when the vast majority of scientists accept it without question. That is, after all, what we mean by the expression 'scientific contribution': an offering that is accepted however provisionally, into the common fund of knowledge."

Like it or not, global warming is a universally accepted truth. There is no argument on the topic. What is open to debate is the reasons for the warming effect. The vast majority of the scientific community have agreed on the CO2 theory as most likely, but there is still discussion about how the CO2 increases are tied to human action and our level of responsibility. Because this is not yet agreed to, universally, does not mean we should not act upon this. That does not change the fact that we have the ability to alter our society for the betterment of the planet by reducing our contribution to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Here, I'll try and put into terms that make sense to you.

If the toilet in your house is plugged and overflowing, do you take action to stop the flow of effluent back into your home? Or do you go in and drop a deuce and roll the dice by pulling the handle again? Maybe you play it smart and hold it, or you go next door and use your neighbor's crapper? I know what the pragmatic decision would be, I guess the only question is do you?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by peter12

The models don't exactly paint an accurate picture of how much temperature is rising or how much humans have to do with it. Half the weather stations in the world are not currently active, we have no way of telling how much temperature is really rising.

Not saying I don't think global warming is happening. A look at the NW passage this summer has me pretty convinced. My point is, we don't know nearly enough about what is happening.

I watched a really interesting episode of Nova a couple weeks ago called Dimming the Sun. The basic summed up version is that, contrails, which are the pollution left behind by planes are dimming the sun and are lowering the temperature on earth. The theory is that our impact on the temperature of the planet is worse then we thought because the contrails are stopping some of the suns natural heat. This was shown when on 9/11 all planes were grounded for 3 days and the temperature of the earth went up all over the planet. If anyone catches that show on TV, I recommend you watch it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

If the toilet in your house is plugged and overflowing, do you take action to stop the flow of effluent back into your home? Or do you go in and drop a deuce and roll the dice by pulling the handle again? Maybe you play it smart and hold it, or you go next door and use your neighbor's crapper? I know what the pragmatic decision would be, I guess the only question is do you?

Lanny--that's not what I mean by "Anal-ysis paralysis...."

[habernac]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Yeah and until you play in the NHL I don't really care to listen to what you have to say about the Flames.

I don't really understand all this venom being spit about Al Gore. He made a bigger lifestyle change than anyone on this board. He is devoting all his time and money promoting awareness to global warming. That's certainly more impact than I could ever do with buying light bulbs and recycling my beer cans. He does a lot of travelling and a lot of speeches and meeting with dignitaries. And an unfortunate side effect is that he using more power than the average person. But his influence to helping the environment is far greater than the average person. I don't understand how he is suppose to do his job and not have the same footprint that he is making now. And at least he is offsetting his pollution, unlike the majority of the people out there.

No, he hasn't made a bigger lifestyle change than I have. I said it before, I like it that he's brought the issue of climate change to the forefront. But living in his mansion, travelling on planes, taking convoys of large SUVs to his little speeches makes him a hypocrite. As an example, he could very easily do his presentations from his home, getting a TV feed instead of jet setting around the continent.

I cycle to work 12 months of the year. The days I don't ride (in the last 6 months, I've taken the bus twice), I take the bus. Our family got rid of the second vehicle and drive a fuel efficient 4 cylinder car. We reuse and recycle. And I'll put my carbon footprint up against Gore's any day of the week.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think following what could be a economic suicide pact to support a science that I don't believe is fully proven is pretty blind.

I guess that's where you and I differ, because I think ignoring global-warming is what will truly cause economic suicide down the line. If Alberta was smart, we'd be on the green train already, and trying to lead the world in green technology...and reaping it's benefits. Instead our collective heads are stuck in the oil-sand, refusing to believe the reality of what's coming down the line. We will suffer for it, it's just a matter of time.

And kudos on recycling....every little bit helps.