|
Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Although I wasn't born in TN, I have lived here the majority of my life and have always been a liberal democrat. That being said I feel a certain sense of pride when a native TN son wins such a prestiges award for his work on global warming. :)
Quote:
|
I'm glad for him. He's a brave man.
|
The instrument to measure my indifference to this has yet to be invented.
The Nobel committee on such blew all credibility when they gave a terrorist the award--Yassir Arafat. (Following up with the Great Appeaser Jimmy Carter did nothing for them, either.) I'm no more interested in this than I am the Grammies or Academy Awards. I am, however, amused that Gore is lauded in the same week a British Court said his propaganda film needs disclaimers due to inaccuracies. |
Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize
Well, it's official; Al Gore is co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. I feel he deserves it -- he's worked very hard to try to emphasize the impact of climate change. Unfortunately the disinformation campaign by industries has tricked many Americans, despite the fact that the scientific consensus is that climate change is here, man-made, and bad news (Concluded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the G8 joint science academies, the American Meteorological Society, the US National Research Council, and many, many more).
Hopefully more light will be brought on this issue. We need a world in which our descendants can prosper for generations. |
I was also proud of Carter another democratic southerner who won the Nobel Peace Prize......
Quote:
And of course his tireless work with Habitat for Humanity... Quote:
It says something about both men, that that truly care about other human beings & the planet. It says they weren't involved in government just for the power & money, which seems to be the case so often. |
This yankee applauds Gore's well deserved acknowledgement.
|
how does somebody win this award when the documentary they put out has been judged to be inaccurate? how is it that he can ask US to cut down on fossil fuel usage, yet he puts out much more, and win this award?
total hypocrisy in action. |
whenever a celebrity gets the peace prize for being a celebrity who does interesting or important stuff, but whose primarily thing is being a celebrity, it makes me wonder what the point of the nobel prize is. i dont say this because i am concerned one way or another about this awarding of the peace prize to gore and the head of the un commission on climate change. i just wonder why it doesnt ever seem to be awarded to less visible folk who devote their lives and resources to the grinding work of trying to affect change on the ground, day in day out. why the peace prize is not given to a group like medecins san frontiers, for example, i'll never understand.
but yes---i think that its nice that folk are able to feel a degree of pride in this. sidebar: folk dont seem to know what a documentary is, still. a documentary is an argument about the world:the point is to make an argument about the world, not to tell you what the world is. this is *the* foundational principle of documentary as a cinematic form. so if there are factual errors in a documentary, they can and should be exposed and become part of the debate--but the point of such a film is to generate debate. if a documentary simply told you how the world is, the debate would be unnecessary, meaningless. so the claims above that factual errors might or do exist in the film is empty as a judgment about the documentary status of the film. that folk are worked up about the film enough to care is an index that the film does--and does well--what conventional documentary is supposed to do. so you make the point, you loose the argument. |
The prize was shared by Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC press release)
Its a nice combo. Gore, with his celebrity status, will continue to draw attention to the issue, even if at times his approach is a bit extreme...and the IPCC will continue to perform its work, but with a new recognition of its objectivity and scientific approach to the issue. |
He can join Jimmy Carter in this meaningful, non-political award.
My heart is warmed, much like our planet. |
Quote:
This thread was moved to politics, I didn't start it here. |
Quote:
/agree |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't care whether you agree with his underlying sentiment, or not. That's just plain damn funny. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I thought he already had a Nobel prize for inventing the Internet.
|
Quote:
|
There is a wonderful lesson to be gathered from this thread in my opinion. Two men, who have put in quite a bit of effort to improve the world, and the lives of people they will never know, have been recognized for the attempts by a body intent on promoting and rewarding others for helping the world population at large.
For some reason they are attacked by a certain political leaning mindset in an obvious attempt to diminish what they accomplished due to some form of hatred of what they stand for politically. I find it fascinating that the extreme good these men have done, is tossed aside to focus on weaknesses we all share to an extent. While the people who represent the politics the dissenters stand for, would never even be considered for such recognition in the first place. Even after they get pardoned. |
Pickins must have been slim this year....
Al Gore on a par with Nelson Mandela or Bishop Tutu or MLK?...pffftt Granted, there are some on the winner's list that are less than stellar (Arafat, for ex), but...Al Gore? At least now he can afford to buy his own hybrid jet. :D Past winners: http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html |
Don't forget we had Jimmy Carter in 2002 and god help us Kofi Annan in 2001.
Its become a political statement, shame really. |
Quote:
Please explain to me how the VP of the Clinton administration is a "celebrity?" Gore dropped out of politics after the 2000 election, and he only reemerged as a person of note, when his work in addressing climate change began to get public recognition last year. Leonardo DeCaprio, a true celebrity, got instant recognition for his documentary on global warming this year. Identifying Gore as a "celebrity" is curious, at best. Carter wasn't a "celebrity" when he received his Nobel peace prize, but was rather a "failed" president by some standards. He has worked long and hard to earn the "Elder" status that he carries today, but his work in the Middle East was worthy of the Nobel. Did anyone else notice that the right's conservative talking points were prepared and distributed before Gore won the prize? All of the conservative talking heads and a few negative posters here, used the identical arguments to dismiss Gore, and the Nobel committee. This topic says everything about what has become of our country. Rabid political rancour drives some people to tear down one of our own citizens who has won a well deserved international acknowledgement. WE, as a country, are unable to celebrate the acknowledgement of one of our countrymen due to nothing more than trite internal partisanship. We, as a country, have never been this polarized in the past, and I suggest to you that this current divisiveness is deliberate. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I've been dismissing the Nobel committee on the piece prize long before this, its a political tool. Carter was picked BECAUSE he was anti-Bush. Kofi? Christ on a cracker, I can't think of too many less worthy of one. And please, don't give me this right is causing the country to be polarized innocent crap. The left has done nothing but try to erode support for the president since he took office, and yet this is all our fault? Please, your implication is absurd. |
Try reading my post one more time, very slowly if you need to.
|
Let's not forget this close call: Nobel nomination for Bush and Blair.
|
Same shit on this forum.....over and over....here's the "drill".....unsupported taunts are posted in response to an OP.....
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
RE: the short, unsubstantiated posts criticizing Gore and Carter: <h3>I am aware that y'all "know what you know"....but....since I've already posted tirelessly and throroughly to counter your unsupported opinions, could you maybe take then over to the CNP owned, townhall.com. where everybody knows what you're talking about?</h3> ....on this forum, I've qualified my opinions of Mr. Gore, and Mr. Carter...and you detractors don't seem, after all this time and challenge, to be able to afford me the courtesy of providing actual support for your opinions....but that's how it is here....short, flippant posts, fully displayed, and posts crafted via actual time, effort and accompanying support......are to be posted behind the <h2>hide</h2>....tag.... Question, Ustwo....why have you come back here....is it to broaden the "discussion", or to stamp it out??? http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...et#post2133697 post #1 Quote:
...and here is a thoughtful, thorough rebuttal...to the opinions and supporting citations contained in my posts quoted in the two preceding boxes: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...et#post2133697 post# 8 Quote:
...and in response to the "one line" sniping at Jimmy Carter: I posted this, responding to an Ustwo thread devoted to a dismissal of Jimmy Carter....and I prefaced the following comments with supporting articles: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ghlight=carter post# 39 Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=47 post# 47 Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ghlight=carter post# 49 Quote:
|
host, just a little threadjack, but....
do you ever post anything short? Is it necessary to quote yourself? We get it, you vote Democrat. /end threadjack World Wildlife Fund has done more to save the planet in the last 25 years than Gore, but I don't see it anywhere on that list. Carter was and still is, a hippie in a suit. That's not to say he doesn't or hasn't done good things, but he had no business being president and won for ONE reason-Nixon's legacy. For years, the Nobel committees have waivered between political choices and nonpolitical humanitarian ones. There's no one person or group who wields the power of a Martin Luther King, Jr. or the idealism of a Nelson Mandela or Lech Walesa. Quite frankly, a 'Peace Prize' is a misnomer any more and very much so in this case. Who gets it next year? Toyota and Chevrolet for their hybrids? I don't knock Gore for his work-if someone believes strongly in something, they should forge ahead-I just don't feel that his accomplishments are worthy of something that portends to hold a great deal of "honor", nor do they have anything to do with peace. |
Well, I had a couple discussions about this today. I'm not happy about it, but then I'm also not a big fan of Gore. I give him credit for supporting what he believes in, I just don't agree with the concepts.
I am glad Bush didn't win but I think there were better options. But, it's all opinion, not fact, so it's all arbitrary I suppose. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
....Did Carter assess the greatest challenges that America would face after his presidency, and design and implement a comprehensive plan to meet those challenges....or....didn't he? I have shared everything that I've dug up about Carter's vision and accomplishments, and what was later done to thwart them and to discredit him.....and you've complained that I've shared too much...and you've offered nothing in response.... I'm tired of that kind of crappy dynamic.....here..... |
Quote:
But c'mon are you serious host, posting the MSN.COM internet vote? Is it a popularity contest? So if next year they put up Britney Spears that's agreeable to you? |
Quote:
Back to replying to the Carter trashing....what is the basis for your negative opinions? I don't see it, because you won't post anything that I can verify or challenge..... Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
As far as negative about Carter, only a few things that stick in my mind about President Carter is the long gas lines I had to sit in. When I was growing up there were 4 corner gas stations on most intersection in the San Fernando Valley. The gas crisis reduced those to 1. Another item which I'm not 100% sure about but understand that some of it had to have happened on his watch is the S&L crisis of the early 80s. The biggest thing from President Carter's presidency that I remember is the 444 days of captivity of the American hostages in Iran. The failed military recovery that didn't even get close to a recovery attempt. In my opinion, it is the hostages and the gas crisis that did in President Carter, I don't see the martyr aspect of him hiring Paul Volcker as the reason. |
Quote:
* Promoting human rights and working with refugees in Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, ... * Mediating fair elections in Haiti, Guyana, Suriname, Paraguay... * Serving as Clinton's informal ambassador and facilitating a peaceful settlement in Bosnia * Working with Habitat for Humanity around the world But even his presidency was recognized for his emphasis on human rights as central to foreign policy and his accomplishment in bringing peace between Egypt and Israel with the Camp David accords. |
While not trying to interject levity into this conversation as I'm reading more about Mr. Gore today, I found this quote humorous:
Quote:
|
ok so first, when i posted earlier wondering why the peace prize only goes to the prominent rather than going to people or organizations who work at a less visible level in the day-to-day grind of trying to make lives better, defuse conflict, alter socio-economic realities, i in no way wanted or expected that i'd find this position collapsed into the conservative american glibfest about al gore.
i was making an entirely different point. had i waited to see how the thread would develop before posting, i would not have said it at all. secondly, i find the conservative responses to this award to be kind of astonishing. what we have is yet another sorry example of the effects of right-medias use of an orwellian-style group-hate technique to structure the beliefs of the few remaining faithful. what we have is a collapsing of the substantive questions onto short, punchy-but-empty memes about the person of al gore. what we have is a almost like a programmed response: the heros of independent thinking on the right say exactly what is expected at exactly the same moment given a trigger. and more bewildering still, somehow this near-pavolivan exercise is confused with an extension of a sustantive debate. well sports fans: it isnt. the award itself does not raise new problems--the gap that separates the private language of american conservative views of global warming from those of the rest of the planet have been evident in the debates about the kyoto protocols. even on this board, of late, the basis for this private language-based rejection of the notion of global warming has been reduced to a matter of claims to direct causation, from which appears to follow questions qas to whether it makes sense to act, as if the possibility that human agency is not the sole cause of the phenomenon means that there is no reason to do anything. that is ridiculous. it is high time that the americans reconsidered their transportation model, just as it is high time that china reconsidered its reliance on coal as a domestic heating source. ========= addendum: the arguments for reconsidering the us transportation model do not exclusively require gw as a motive--congestion in urban areas is also a strong argument--rethinking suburban-urban connections are another, moving to a more regional concept of space/community woudl make sense---addressing class disparities at the level fo transportation---a new-deal style infrastruicture development program--a trigger for new types of industrial development within the boundaries of the us---any of these (and there are more) could get you to the same place. ============== if making the case for these processes of rethinking requires that al gore's film be place at the center of the american debate, then fine. and the work of the un on this issue has been fundamental. |
Quote:
As Cyn has stated, our remembrances of the Carter Administration begin and end with long lines at the gas pumps, American hostages in the Middle East, the economical disasters, including but not limited to inflation, rising interest rates on credit and falling interest rates on savings(political opinions state he almost cost us the COld War with that stuff), increasing taxes to cover Social Security funding and witnessing a UFO. It's common knowledge that he won the presidency, not on his strengths alone, but because of the disgrace of Nixon and Ford's decision to pardon him. His weaknesses, including the inability to bring home the hostages, were why he didn't get a second term. I find it ironic, by the way, that this man who also claims and is seen to be a staunch environmentalist, started a fertilizer business back when he was also a 'peanut farmer'. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Carter, a good man, not the best president as they go, but certainly not the worst either. The hostages were however eventually released solely because of Carters work, even though Reagan was pres, he had nothing to do with the release. As I recall Reagan called the Iranians "Barbarians" and refused to negotiate. Quote:
The UFO siting did diminish his credibility which is sad since he certainly wasn't the first or last human to see one. Many expert witnesses, who have everything to lose & nothing to gain, have seen & continue to see them today. He should have kept his mouth shut much as I should have. Many of Carters detractors definitely suffer from prejudice towards southerners in general. Being a peanut farmer doesn't help this view. I much prefer an honest hardworking farmer to a corrupt career politician hell bent on securing middle east resources for the exploitation of his cronies. I find it somewhat short sited to blame all the ills of the country on the president at that time. Unless that pres attempts to circumvent the constitution, bypass congress & remake the country in his own image.....:) |
Quote:
You're definitely not the only person who has said this, but if this statement is all there is to the matter, then where does that leave us? There's no reason to offer any support or justification for our opinions just because you can always dig something up that supports your view? That's a pretty limiting view of discussions. I do click links, because not all support is equal. Not all positions have equal merit, and not all support has equal validity. It's incumbent on us to take that into account since the alternative is unproductive. My thoughts... |
It's not that easy, but it is that simple.
Whoever is the current leader of this country drives the current of the country, if, by nothing else, his power of the pen. Influence in Washington is everything, as is perception. Confidence(or lack thereof) in a perceived presidential stance, regardless of what that stance is in reality, drives the stock market, the legislation process and the judicial climate. And it drives the voters one way or another, furthering the influences in Washington. As for the hostages, many reports state that it was Reagan's clandestine 'arms for hostages' negotiations that got them home. Carter wouldn't make deals, thinking 'talking' would do it. He by no means got them home. They were released the day of Reagan's inauguration, probably as promised due to those 'discussions'. Reagan was so teflon that, while the Iran-Contra hearings could have caused him to pull a Nixon, he was largely forgiven because of the end results.(Many were calling for his head, impeachment, etc.) How'd we get to this from Gore getting the Nobel?? Guess that's how important we find it.... |
Quote:
The Iranians were terrified Reagan would invade. With Carter, there were no such worries. Yes it was Carters strong backbone that caused the problems :rolleyes: I know it was almost 30 years ago, but come on. |
Quote:
|
Fear not, global warming deniers.
The nobel prize of $1.5 million to Gore (Alliance for Climate Protection) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is still a paltry amount compared to the more than $6 million that Exxon/Mobile Foundation and others spend in grants to spread disinformation on global warming. Welcome back Host :thumbsup: |
Quote:
Actually, the 'arms for hostages' backfired later on as Iran increased its terroristic tactics. Carter had considered the move, but not fast enough before Reagan got wind of it and, being a bit more 'ballsy', stepped in to get the deal going. Carter had a strong backbone??? Must have been after he started working with Habitat for Humanity. :D |
Quote:
Quote:
To get back on track, if there is any, Carter didn't win the Nobel prize because of his work as president. Quote:
|
Quote:
Don't make assumptions you can't back up. I don't read your posts end to end because they hurt my eyes and are so far to the left, it hurts my neck. It is not necessary for you (or anyone) to post word for word some biased article to prove your point-all that does is waste bandwidth, which depletes the ozone :lol: A link will do and if I disagree or question it, I will look it up as well as rebuttal articles. You might also look up the sticky describing how to do a "click to show". Since most of what is being discussed happened over 30 years ago, I wonder: who did you vote for in 1976? |
Quote:
I wont assume it was ignorance on the part of UStwo and others regarding the reason for Carter's award, but rather a convenient means to distract the discussion. And I was only 15 in 1976. :) |
Damn RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!!!!
Quote:
:lol: Undoubtedly another unqualified right wing hack speaking out on the "consensus". |
Dr. Gray seems like those psychics you mock for not applying for the $1 million reward:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I didn't bring up Carters idiocy, I was responding.
As for Dr. Gray, of course its important to discredit the messenger. |
and of course, you dont address his "credientials" :)
|
He's not the only one who feels this way.
The debate has been, pardon the pun, heated for years and doesn't seem to be waning any time soon. For every scientist that claims humans are destroying the climate, another will claim bullshit. Somewhere in the middle is probably the truth. Clearing of rainforests and old wood growth forests has detriments that can not be ignored. The superfluous burning of fossil fuels does as well. But, since the 1970's, when our impact on the atmosphere first seriously came to light and policies began to change, the climate, greenhouse gasses, 'global warming', et al, did not. At that time the 'industrial revolution' was less than 200 years back, with the height of 'careless' burning of fuels, manufacturing of new, potent chemicals and their thoughtless disposal being less than 100 years back. In the past 30 years, rivers once considered dead have been brought back, natural animal sanctuaries have sprouted across the country, old growth forest destruction has ebbed and industry as a whole has cleaned up its act, literally. Some failures: car pooling, efficient use of landfills, reduction of methane and/or developing an efficient use of it; development of alternative fuels, both for transportation and home use and mining. While I appreciate anyone's efforts to be more conscious of the resources available to us, I also feel Gore and his ilk are political Chicken Littles. Quote:
If scientists can't come to a conclusion, how can anyone else? http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm |
Quote:
Why is is that most global warming skeptic findings, including Dr. Gray's, are not peer reviewed or published in credible scientific journals? Why do you think it is that the science academies of the largest industrial nations dont accept your premise that "for every scientist that claims humans are destroying the climate, another will claim bullshit"? Do you think these national acadamies of science have a pre-determined, political agenda? Quote:
I would attribute it, in large part, to governmental action like the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Wilderness Protection Act. |
Quote:
You disagree with the statement, yet I linked NASA's page to counter the notion that this is strictly a human problem. Our 'contribution' to global warming is, indeed, debated within the scientific community, specifically, how much we are responsible for and what can be done to change it. And for everything said that could be done, there are others that will theorize that this is cyclical and not up to human intervention. Edit: Gore to debate climatologists Quote:
|
Global climate change is not strictly human, but to deny the effect by humans ignores the evidence. It's because that fact is being hidden by interested parties that Gore's accomplishment is so great. Despite the actions of the Republican party to hide, discredit, or lie about global warming and the overwhelming evidence, Gore has made sure that everyone has access to good information. Despite the bloggers (not scientists) who discredit An Inconvenient Truth, the information is reaching the people.
It's a good thing, and he surely earned the prize. |
Quote:
Thats why it is called consensus and not unanimity. But I guess to some, 7 = several hundred + 11 national academies of sciences. *** Gore's work on global warming is much like the work of the environmental movement that sprouted up in the late 60s. It raised public awareness. It took 5-10 years for governments to catch up and take action through legislation in the mid 70s (that i cited above) that resulted in the environmental successes that ngdawg rightly noted have occurred over the last 30 years: In the past 30 years, rivers once considered dead have been brought back, natural animal sanctuaries have sprouted across the country, old growth forest destruction has ebbed and industry as a whole has cleaned up its act, literally.Unless ngdawg and others believe those "corrections" occurred naturally or that industry would have implemented those "corrections" voluntarily. |
Of course there was legislation to make the changes. (Good grief, what is it with these smarmy little digs of presumptuous inuendo?) Lives were being affected and, ultimately, industry. (Try backing up your toilet and see if it doesn't affect more than just your bathroom, for an analogy).
The crux of the matter is not what humans contribute to global warming, it's how much is manmade vs. cyclical. Do we affect hurricanes? No. Little is mentioned of the actual changing of the earth's shape in these types of debates-it's no longer a perfect sphere; that, too, affects global climatic changes. Are humans responsible for the almost imperceptible moving north of the equator? No. How much does that affect global climate change vs. manmade pollutants, though? Envision a seesaw with cyclical climate vs manmade and watch it sway back and forth..... The debates will go on because the earth is dynamic, the solar system is dynamic and data collecting is ongoing. In the meantime, volcanoes continue to erupt, land masses shift and the sun loses heat. Gore, et al, would have you believe mankind can change all that and thus, the Chicken Little syndrome. In one of my links, mention is made that the US supposedly contributes to about 24% of the earth's pollutants. Not good, of course. But it's not 76% and I daresay it's been going down since that report and Bush reportedly rejected the Kyoto coalition because he's of the opinion we can do better(of course, Bush-bashers say nay to that idea and claim he's only rejecting it because of big business. *shrug*) Of that I have no opinion at all, but as a whole, we are doing a helluva lot better than 25 years back and still the climate changes. Previous thought that it's the result of over 100 years ago seemingly is being dropped by some sources-others contend the worst of the height of the Industrial Revolution will linger for centuries and that the lack of reversal is due to not being diligent enough(that seesaw thing again). Somewhere in the middle of both trains of thought is probably where the truth lies. DDT, rampant burning of fossil fuels, copper and other metals being mined, the dumping of waste into public waterways-these all had lingering affects to life. Cars have to meet or exceed regulated emissions, we no longer have unleaded gas (don't get me started on that crapola ethanol), old forest growth is being left alone for the most part(they really need to leave the redwoods alone), the US is acquiring more parkland and the public as a general whole has become more 'informed' with entire industries devoted to a green way of life. All this happened long before Gore jumped on the fuel-efficient bandwagon. But we still build roads and structures, still tear down smaller forests for shopping malls and I truly doubt Gore rides a bike across the country to give his speeches on global warming. |
To be perfectly frank... who gives a rat's ass about WHY global warming is occurring? The point is, it's happening whether from manmade causes, natural causes, or a combination of the two (and I'm betting the latter with absolutely no supporting reasons). The point is... why *shouldn't* we be more responsible about the environment? Because it might cost some big rich oil companies more time or money? Boo fucking hoo. The point is... we *DO* need alternate sources of energy. Because if it's 5 years or 50 or 500... natural oil sources *will* eventually dry up. And we are dependent on countries that produce oil. That's not good for the environment nor our political stance and actions.
So, the point is... GIVE UP THE OIL DEPENDENCE AND LIVE MORE RESPONSIBLY. Who cares what camp you're in, just stop being a schmuck! Easier said than done, as I sit here on my electricity-powered laptop. But you get the general drift. Things need changing, and we're wasting time and energy arguing about WHY it needs changing. Even if global warming isn't caused solely by all the factors Gore talked about, why does that matter? Aren't those behaviors still negative for other reasons? Be reasonable. So you hate Democrats or politicians or whatever. Do you hate living with clean air? Do you hate reducing our dependence on countries that hate us? Do you hate reducing carcinogenic effects on the populace? Don't be an idiot. You people are politicizing things that are far beyond the petty bullshit of politics and our so-called two party system. Cut it out. Be logical, please. |
I don't think it should be political at all. But why it occurs is important. It affects policy at a governmental and international level.
Personally, I think being environmentally responsible is not only an obligation but for individuals, it makes economic sense. I save money not using the hot water, not using the oven and clothes dryer constantly, turning off lights and not driving a gas-guzzler. My house stays cooler because there's trees around it (well, there were trees around it before the neighbors decided to chop'em down). It stays warmer in winter because the windows get sealed, thus less energy to heat it(plus the thermostat stays at 65). I'd rather see farmland be built on than have forests torn down for housing-at least the farmland is already cleared and, in fact, trees and plants on that land would be increased due to the building. Should I pay attention to a politician who travels the country by plane and car as he extolls the importance of political involvement in matters of the environment? I don't, so, no. Should a politician be given the Peace Prize for environmental work? No, if they want to reward environmental zealots, there should be a category for it. I do all the above, give to World Wildlife Fund when I can and I didn't need an Al Gore to tell me to. Maybe others do, but I'm of the opinion that either you give a shit or you don't. This issue has been in the forefront of discussion for over 30 years and one would have to have been living in a cave to not know something about it. On the other hand, living in a cave would be a true environmentalist.... |
Perhaps the award selection committee considered the fact that "this issue has been in the forefront of discussion for over 30 years" and very little has been done beyond studies and more studies:
"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"Will the award help stimulate action....or will we just have more studies for the next 30 years? Who knows. |
I don't think 'very little has been done'. More can be done...but the strides made in the last 30 years or more have been huge.
We have saved many species from certain extinction due to pesticides and hazardous environmental impact. The stripping of rainforests has been slowed. Stringent regulations have been put in place to control environmental hazards from industry. Recycling has become a way of life. More and more, alternative energy comes into play in both homes and business. Revitalization of many areas of the world has taken place( the Black Forest comes to mind here) Strip mining has decreased. Our biggest hurdle is dependency on fossil fuels. How cool would it be to see a new development with a windmill in every yard? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Was this the same prize awarded to Yassar Arafat?
|
Quote:
But we are living and working under a 30 year old national environmental policy. We renew the old bills every 8-10 years (Clean Air, Clean Water, etc) with the same old 1970s regulatory standards.....as the amount of greenhouse gas emissions continues to grow from the 70s, through the 80s and 90s, and into the 21st century. I cant think of any new meaningful environmental initiatives under Reagan, GHW Bush or even Clinton/Gore. And in the last seven years, we've taken a step backwards under the current Bush. His "Clear Sky Initiative" rolls back Clean Air Act standards on power plants and other large industrial polluters. His "Healthy Forest Initiative" has opened up some pristine national forests to the logging industry. And his energy program gave $multi millions in tax breaks to big oil at the expense of supporting and developing alternative energy. |
edit
|
Uh, Hello.....He donated all the money to.....wait, I'll give you 3 guesses.
Lets see 2500 children (Yes, I love children, I have one myself), or the entire planet........hmmmmmm....... Quote:
|
Bottom line, of course, is that the IPCC and Al Gore are correct.
http://www.normanrockswell.com/images/1012201.jpg Thanks Al and IPCC, for your accurate reporting of the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. |
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Quote:
Was the Nobel committee aware of Gore's conservation efforts in his personal life? |
To play Devil's Advocate to DaveMatrix's quoted piece:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Here is an inconvenient truth for those who like to rely on sites like JunkScience.com or Fox News (and PrisonPlanet.com) or videos like the Great Global Warming Swindle for their global warming information.
These sites provide "remarks" by skeptical scientists but rarely, if ever (I cant find any) provide links to studies published in credible scientific journals or, at the very least, are peer reviewed. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because they arent published in credible scientific journals or peer reviewed? Just a thought. |
Quote:
|
Oh boy, now we're gonna compare the houses of Gore & Bush??? Gore didn't do this, so his utility bills seem trivial.
Quote:
|
Quote:
ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. |
Quote:
|
Ok, lets get the story straight, for once. I live near Nashville so I'm familar with this story. Gores home in Belle Meade isn't the one pictured above, its a 2 story and he has another, his family home which he inherited form his father, also a TN senator. That may be the one pictured above......The city of Belle Meade has been blocking Gores attempts to install solar panels because they are considered unsightly by the rich people in that neighborhood. He purchases green power that costs twice as much, to offset his carbon footprint.
Quote:
He does have money but how many US senators do you know that don't??? Hmmmmmm......... As far as him inventing the internet, that is of course a misquote. Quote:
|
Quote:
To reiterate what was said earlier, you pick and choose and edit what you want to convey-everyone does. But to say that your argument is backed by a more 'credible' source, when, in fact it is more biased than something from a 'news source' is just hypocracy and weak. For what it's worth, I'm 'green' in thought and in deed; it is something I feel pretty strongly about. But that fact remains that the scientific community is not unanimous in its conclusions about the definitive whats and whys of changing climate, except to say some part may be manmade, some is not. |
Quote:
If you were interested in reading the report that is linked in the press release, you would have seen that the UCS scientists followed proper research protocol and annotated their report with 273 footnotes to source material. You can question their funding if you want, but they dont make unsubstantiated claims in their reports. You see, that is the difference between proper scientific research and the work of many of the skeptics who seem to conveniently forget footnotes or any documentation of their source matieral, which IMO, makes UCS more credible that ExxonMobil or any of the foundations who publish reports with their money. I still wonder why it so hard to provide a published report, with source information" from a skeptic scientists, rather than just their talking points. BTW, I dont think any one in the scientific community or the political/public policy community have said that there is unanimity in the causes or contributions to global warming....but ithere is consensus among climatologists (and national academies of sciences) that it is highly likely (not 100% certainty) that human activities contributes to greenhouse gases and global warming. Ustwo's links to skeptics, the seven skeptics (that you posted earlier) or a handful of others funded by energy interests groups represent a very small slice of the climatology community. That is why the overwhelming majority is considered a consensus. If you dont agree with, or question the conclusions of the consensus, thats fine. But it is incorrect to say there is no consensus based on a few skeptics. And its great that you are green! I try to be as well. :) |
Quote:
post #27, I provided a link to an old post on another thread that contained all of this: The right's principle propagandist, L. Brent Bozell III, may have been responsible in misleading you to believe that Al Gore claimed to have "invented" the internet: Here is Bozell...attacking Gore, less thna a month before the 2000 Gore vs. Bush, election.... <b>Al Gore is a visionary, he did not claim that he "invented the internet: </b> Quote:
<b>Here is the actual background of the myth that Al Gore said, "I invented the internet.":</b> Al Gore had more influence over the rapid development of the internet, than any other federal legislator: (Take note of the dates of the articles that I've cited, and that 1994 was considered the year of "early" adapters.) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Are you really surprised that Ustwo is bashing Gore? He'd bash Gandhi. Actually I think he has bashed Gandhi.
|
Quote:
|
First the internet, and now climate change.
What is he going to discover next I wonder. The guy is a techno-scientific wonder. Seriously now.. while it was probably "a good thing" to produce that film (I've not seen it and will probably never bother) - it's hardly ground breaking to pick up on something that's been known and studied for decades. The smart thing he did was to install himself as a figurehead, at a time when external pressure is mounting on non-Kyoto signatory nations such as US and AU. |
Why would you bother, you have all the answers and are willing to denounce something you've never seen.
Once again for the slower members, Gore never claimed he invented the internet. He actually said.... Quote:
|
that was poor wording on gore's part...but that pales in comparison to some of bush's poor wording!
|
Yeah it was poor wording but you won't hear people like Nimetic admit it. Instead these people prefer one line quips aimed to distract from the real topic.
|
Ok... I may be wrong on the the internet bit. I'll do some research
The internet was well and truly available in the late 80s, I recall it from uni. And we had bulletin boards and so on before that. But I'll check up on this (contribution). The IT press savaged Gore on this topic, but maybe that's a one-sided view. |
Quote:
I guess endorsements of Gore's contribution to the development of the internet, displayed in post $79, By Gates of Microsoft, and Quote:
We can't have discussions on this forum because some of us don't know how they came to "know what they know".....and we repeat the same pattern, over and over..... Bozell and CNP are very good at what they do. The 1200 station, Salem Comm. radio network, and their townhall.com internet destination, reinforce what you think you know, and everyone else ssems to know what you know....nice and neat....and it helped get us into, abd keep us in an avoidable war, and to think that a political agenda that is good for mega millionaires....is good for the rest of us, too! But it isn't, it's a well financed campaign to keep a lot of us ignorant....it's like a virus....and it's killing the country.....making us a little more ike pre-Chavez Venezuela, every effing day...... You come from a wealthy country where ten percent of your small population lives in poverty, why is that? http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...4-2862,00.html ....with your Mr. Howard at the helm, it seems that you're becoming a mini version of the US conservative led...<h3>"let's make the populists seem like fools while we transfer the remaining wealth that they don't yet own....to our rich benefactors..."</h3> Quote:
|
What does any of that have to do with the subject at hand??
|
The "Gore" Act (High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991) established the funding for the creation of the National Information Infrastructure (the "information superhighway") and the development of the first web browser Mosaic among other high tech developments.
Thus, I think Gore's contributions to the creation and development of the internet is worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize (to keep it relevant) :) |
Quote:
|
Well, I'm happy that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize.
For what's it worth. :) The 14th Dalai Lama won the prize in 1989, anyone got anything bad to say about him? |
Al Gore didnt write "For What its Worth"
That was Stephen Stills in his early Buffalo Springfield days. There's something happening hereHow fitting for the current Gore-less state of affairs. |
:lol:
|
Quote:
|
I kind of like the way he dresses. I find the crimson and the saffron to be a very pleasing color combination. :p
|
Granted, and he never has a bad hair day.
|
edit
|
Quote:
|
edit
|
Quote:
Over 20,000 people died in 2003 as a direct result of global warming......kinda puts things in the proper perspective huh??? :eek: Quote:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project