More than just a candidate
By Patrick Kelley
Originally published 02:22 p.m., October 15, 2007
Updated 02:22 p.m., October 15, 2007
It is a mark of this endless campaign season that the news that Al Gore had been named a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize was greeted in this country as a piece of political news. Any celebration of the award was drowned out by instant speculation on whether Gore, who has been known to introduce himself to audiences as the “former president-elect,” would use the publicity as a springboard to the White House.
Gore’s political opponents suggested that the award itself was suspect, a slam at President Bush by the prize committee.
It takes only a little reflection to realize that Gore’s prize, which he shares with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is richly deserved. Think back to the days before Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” was released. In the United States, the topic of global climate change was a battleground. Scientific inquiry into the true state of Earth’s climate was hobbled by partisan political considerations.
But the film gave millions of Americans their first clear look at the evidence for climate change and humanity’s place in the climate equation. The film was a tipping point that helped move the world’s greatest industrial power from confusion and denial to acceptance of the truth.
What has that got to do with peace? Everything. For many years in the war-torn world, the Nobel committee focused on those people and organizations who acted to end conflicts or helped relieve the suffering of the survivors. But recently, the committee has been paying more attention to nominees whose work to eliminate causes of war — poverty, hunger and injustice — may prevent future conflict.
Unchecked climate change has the potential to increase conflict around the world by increasing competition for food, clean water and even dry ground.
Gore has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the dangers ahead and to promote international action to slow or reverse climate change. In all the world, he is the most visible spokesman for action on the issue. It is that work, not the committee’s supposed grudge against the current U.S. administration, that earned Gore the Nobel Peace Prize.
The prize ratifies Gore’s decision to walk away from his political career after losing to George Bush in 2000. He chose a new direction and new purpose for his life, and he chose well.
The nation can be proud of Al Gore, Nobel laureate. His work exemplifies selfless public service and he has won the admiration of people around the world.
He is likely to continue that work.
Compared to his current influence and stature, the presidency would seem to be a step down.
joetraveler (anonymous) says...
I applaud Gore for raising awareness of global warming, but I haven't witnessed him or anyone else changing their lifestyle to combat the situation. Practice what you preach, Al Gore. He relentlessly travels on planes and cars; both major sources of our planet's toxins that he so vehemently oposes. It all starts with everyone doing their part. No exclusions.
October 15, 2007 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wasp (anonymous) says...
So, How does Gore explain Kansas previously being under the Ocean?
October 15, 2007 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
Are Kansas teachers allowed to talk about that ancient ocean,or will they be tarred and feathered?
October 15, 2007 at 11:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Gore getting a nobel prize and a million bucks for his fictional film really lowered my opinion of the Nobel Prize credibility. Surprised they haven't given Moore one too.
October 16, 2007 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
"Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.
An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.
Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. "
"Asked to ban the film from secondary schools, Judge Michael Burton refused, as long as “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush” were explained at screenings, Agence France-Presse reported."
October 16, 2007 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
So now Al Gore is in the same company as Yasser Arafat, renowned terrorist, killer of thousands, and who single-handedly torpedoed the 2000 Mideast peace agreements.
"Arafat had done little in the seven years since Oslo to convince Israelis he had given up his dream of destroying Israel. Nevertheless, Barak came prepared to offer the Palestinians independence and offered a series of formulations to resolve the major issues. Arafat not only rejected all of the American and Israeli ideas, he refused to offer any of his own. As a result, Clinton blamed the summit’s failure on Arafat.
Israel agreed to withdraw from 97% of the West Bank, 100% of the Gaza Strip, dismantle most of the settlements, and create a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. The only concessions Arafat had to make were to acknowledge Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (that is, not the entire Temple Mount), and to agree to three early warning stations in the Jordan Valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years.
The Palestinian negotiators wanted to accept the deal, but Arafat rejected it. According to the principal U.S. peace negotiator, Dennis Ross, the critical issue was the clause in the agreement that said the conflict would now be over. Arafat, whose life has been governed by that conflict, Ross said, simply could not end it.
A series of horrific terror attacks were carried out over the next several weeks — including two gunmen opening fire on a bus stop, which killed two and wounded injured dozens more; suicide bombings in a pedestrian mall in Jerusalem and two others in Haifa; and a bomb and gunfire attack on a bus."
Yea, you're in real good company now, Al. I hope I never win a Nobel Peace Prize, I'd be too ashamed of it, given the credibility of the National Enquirer - er, I meant Nobel Prize (same thing) comittee.... :)
October 16, 2007 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
At least when Al Gore speaks, he doesn't patronize people, stumble over words and repeat phrases and repeat phrases and repeat phrases...you get the picture. I wonder how Bush would explain all the ocean fossils and limestone in present-day Kansas?
October 16, 2007 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Hey, I'll give you someone else who doesn't speak all that well.
Stephen Hawking.
Gosh, he must be an idiot, too. Not to mention all the stutterers, idiot savants, autistics, mutes, people with different accents, etc.... guess a person's fluency with words and speaking is now the new IQ standard....
Everyone thinks Kerry is so brilliant with his speaking skills, but he actually graduated from Yale with a slightly lower GPA than Bush..... look it up....
October 16, 2007 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Amen, Tre!!!
Open_eyes, the person I was referring to was George Bush. And yes, I do expect that the President of the United States should be able to be more fluent than the average bear, and to answer questions in a press conference without repeating himself over and over again, and without patronizing people like they were stupid!
IQ points don't mean that much. It's what you do with your IQ that counts.
October 16, 2007 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mrgerleman (anonymous) says...
If you possess the intellectual curiousity and interest in reading a truly SCIENTIFIC counter-point to this blatantly, politically partisan opinion. click on this link.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimi...
October 17, 2007 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
An Inconvenient Truth is a "fictional film," really? I am completely surprised that anyone in this day and age could whole-heartedly believe global warming to be fiction. After all of the scientific research that has been conducted over the past many decades, no one should doubt the facts.
We are in a race between education and catastrophy. The people of this planet need to worry about the future. We need to learn what we can do to make a difference and then take action.
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
October 17, 2007 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
bd, the point of contention for most people is not that whether or not global warming is happening, it is whether or not MAN is the reason behind it.....
Remember, the ancient chinese have records of sailing thru the arctic ocean and not finding ANY ice, yet somehow the polar bears are still with us, and Greenland got its name NOT from being covered in ice, there used to be many vinyards in the UK, etc.....
There was a documentary that I've posted links to before disputing many of the "facts" about global warming as presented by Gore, by many very qualified scientists that are somehow outside of the "all" noted by Gore that agree with him. Aired in UK, somehow the link keeps changing, probably as the politically correct crowd keeps trying to keep their errors from being broadcast to the public.
As for the Nobel Prize, sure they've made some good choices, but they've made some dumb ones and some pretty politically motivated ones as well. I really don't lose much sleep over the fact that I'll probably never win one....
As for my company, I would not treat you as an infidel, nor would I send a bunch of suicide bombers into a restaurant you were eating at, so who knows, you might really like my company if you got to know me.... :)
October 17, 2007 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
As for As for Justice Burton's "opinions", it was not stated that in his "opinion" there were errors, he stated "serious scientific inaccuracies". As have many, many highly respected and qualified scientists, who keep getting swept under the rug. Somehow all of Gore's data, with all its inaccuracies, is "fact", and anything that disagrees with it, no matter how much research and data behind it, is "opinion".
Has anyone here ever actually spoken with an average bear? Other than Yogi the Bear (who is actually SMARTER than the average bear)? Yes, I would like anyone in the public eye to be fluent and smooth, but I know some brilliant people who aren't all that glib (who DO alot with their IQ), and I know some very, very stupid and corrupt people (such as alot of politicians these days) who are great at smooth-talking. Like you said, it's what they do with it that counts, but apparently to some people its all in the delivery. Well, let's all vote for Dean because he has the best hair. Everyone has a comb, but he DOES the most with his... :)
October 17, 2007 at 3:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I certainly hope your home is "greener" that Gore's... :)
October 18, 2007 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I have read articles showing how some of the data in Gore's documentary was "cherry picked" from the same data sources you quote, leaving out some data that contradicted Gore's statements. From the very same data sources. And some was just plain wrong. For example, Gore states that 1998 was the warmest year on record. Actually, 1934 was the warmest year on record, and 5 of the 10 warmest years recorded were in the 1930's. Just Opinions, you say?
Also the documentary I mentioned beforehand had several scientists that were members or former members of your aformentioned organizations, that left or were ostracized because they dared to differ with Gore's bandwagon. Also some very experienced climatologists who lost their funding or were threatened with losing funding for not jumping on the bandwagon.
If Gore's "opinions" (your word) IS fact, why all the threats and deceptions? Why not come out and admit the errors, why the pressure on and attempted suppression of the scientists who disagree? What is wrong with hearing comments and displaying data from the other side that doesn't agree with the "bandwagon"?
Seems to me if their "opinion" is sound, they should be able to have open discourse and show ALL the data, whether it agrees with the bandwagon or not. But when all this stuff is happening in the background, "me smells something rotten in Denmark." Or do you agree that anything that disagrees should be suppressed, and the public should only be aware of one side of the story? Does that not raise a few eyebrows?
As I've stated before, I'm not completely in disagreement. I'm more concerned with the pollution side of it. I would love to see the world a cleaner and less polluted place. But when I see one side of an argument pull a bunch of "fast ones" behind the scenes to repress anything that might disagree with their agenda, I tend to not just jump in with the rest of the lemming crowd and run off the cliff. I don't know about anyone else, but those type of actions make me start suspecting some rotting fish somewhere.....
October 18, 2007 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Oh, and I have 1 other question that has been bugging me...
Exactly what the heck does global warming have to do the the Nobel PEACE Prize, anyway?
Mabye he should have won it for physics or literature?
I guess you could try to argue that it's making the world all "come together", but I think that sounds pretty weak.
Maybe he got it because a "piece" of the Antarctic ice sheet broke off and is floating free, and the Nobel committee got "piece" confused with "peace"....
Yet another reason this one sounds pretty political to me...
October 18, 2007 at 3:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sorry, I meant greener THAN Gore's.... darn farsightedness...:)
October 18, 2007 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporian (anonymous) says...
Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but there was an ice age once and guess what...it warmed up. Kansas was once a tropical ocean environment. I dont see that happening either. Maybe we are in an inbetween stage and this is a natural phenomenon. Somebody just embelishes it for their own political gain. I take everything the gentleman for San Fransico, CA (home of the left wing liberal dingbats) and throw it out the window). I am neither republican or democrat, but science tells me we once had glaciers in KS and they melted just fine without the help of greenhouse gasses so it has warmed up before. Did you know that Wolly mammoth fossils have been found in the rock quarry at hartford? They liked it cool did they not? Did somebody forget these simple history lessons?
October 18, 2007 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I still don't see what this has to do with the Nobel PEACE Prize.
Mandela, Mother Teresa, MLK Jr, I see the connection.
Arafat, a joke.
But Gore? Give him a prize for his efforts if you want, fine, but seems like this is not the category for it.
There are some scientists who have discovered and are tracking a large meteor which may come extrememly close to the earth in, something like 2029 (not sure of the year).
Since they are "indispensable players in the drama of mankind's encounter with the (((possibility of destroying the climatic balance))) within which our civilization emerged and developed", maybe they should be up for the "PEACE" prize as well? Or maybe astronomy would be a more appropriate category.......???
Indispensable, not that REALLY has me ROFL :)
October 18, 2007 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Kstr, I have no problem with what you said about the environment. I, too, try to do what little things I can such as recycling, etc... because I grew up with a love of the outdoors and do what I can to lessen the pollution of our environment. As I said before, I'm all for a cleaner earth for all of us.
Will global warming and/or cooling affect our descendants? Absolutely. Not to long ago there was an announcement of an ancient settlement that was found in 500 feet of water in the English Channel.
Could have been a positive, I guess, they now have a built-in swimming pool.
(Sigh) If only Fred Flinstone had listened to Gore, and chased the dinosarus on foot instead of using his gas-guzzling HumVee.... :( Wait, he probably did, Gore just got everyone ELSE to hunt on foot while he continued to zoom around in his private Hummer, and got everyone ELSE to eat their meat raw while he built fires that gave off 20 times as much smoke as the national average to cook his meat. But, I'm sure he bought "Green" credits for his cave. Here is how they worked. Gore paid somebody that owned some land with trees on it, that had no intention whatsoever of ever cutting down those trees, to NOT cut down the trees, so that he could burn extra wood to offset it.
Yes, that is the way some of the Green credits work. I've looked into it, I can get money for not cutting down trees, paid for by somebody buying Green credits, I just have to pick some trees I was never going to cut down anyway.
Dang, I never was that good with this newfangled math, but, much like the suppression of anti-Gore data, something smells rotten in Denmark. I mean in the forest.
October 18, 2007 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Mr. Gerleman, a great article from Hillsdale. I found his list of upside points very heartening, in particular that forests could expand, and agriculture in cooler areas could expand as well.
I try to do what I can to contribute -- changing light bulbs, that sort of thing. But I also drive an SUV and where I come from originally, Madame Pele has been belching lava and sending gasses into the atmosphere since I was a little kid. She's just doing her natural thing. How many light bulbs shall I change to combat her?
October 18, 2007 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
It's okay, create, Madame Pele bought some Green Credits, she paid somebody in the middle of the Sahara desert to agree to not cut down any forest, therefore everything balances out - LOL
October 18, 2007 at 8:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Just watched an interesting segment on 20/20 about global warming. They interviewed a group of scientists who were former members of the IPCC who were either forced out or quit for disagreeing. The IPCC is a government organization that handpicks their people, in many cases activists, not necessarily qualified scientists. One of the scientists being interviewed had to sue to have his name removed from the official IPCC report because he complained about the inaccuracies and false claims in it. The IPCC, of course, denies this. Another received death threats, saying "he wouldn't live to see global warming". And, of course, the IPCC claims they are all on the payroll of big oil companies, which they laughed about, saying they wouldn't be living in tiny apartments and driving old clunkers if they were...
All the scientists interviewed agreed that global warming IS happening, they disagreed on man being the principal cause. They did point out that Greenland's temperature warmed at a faster pace in the 1920's than it is now. Hmmm.....
And Gore got a Peace Prize for this?
I can't picture Mother Teresa's organization or movement making death threats against people that disagree. Arafat's, yes....
October 19, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Actually, Newsweek and Time both ran stories in 1975 in which the climatologists were claiming all the data pointed that we were headed for another ice age. The earth had been cooling, and the glaciers were advancing.
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_wo...
And, a clip from http://www.businessandmedia.org/speci...
"U.S. News and World Report agreed, noted that “winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” on Jan. 8, 1954.
In the ’70s, glaciers did an about face. Ponte in “The Cooling” warned that “The rapid advance of some glaciers has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union.”
So, in answer to your question about the glaciers advancing, yes.
As for blasting 20/20, that's fine. Again, I repeat (yawn) they ALL agreed that global warming WAS currently happening, they just did not see evidence to support the conclusion that man was the major or even minor cause of it. Again, everyone has the right to present their data and findings, and draw their conclusions from it. Why is it that in this discussion, everything that agrees on one side is all "highly qualified", and taken as fact, and anything that disagrees with it is riduculed as "the place to go for nothing but the truth, so they must have all the answers"??? We're not talking about the National Enquirer, here. 20/20 was talking directly with the scientists who were (formerly) part of the IPCC and were ostracized, threatened, and fired for daring to question the politically correct answer. Again, when 2 sides can disagree like adults, even argue but with civility and respect, then I have a much easier time of seeing both sides. But when one side uses deception and fraud to discredit any opposing view.... well, instead of me making my usual remark about something not smelling right, I'll just let any thinking person draw their own conclusions about what odor is wafting in the breeze...
October 19, 2007 at 10:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Ran out of room, a little more from the 2nd link above to answer your Hmmm... question about the glaciers advancing...
" Even The Christian Science Monitor in the same year noted “glaciers which had been retreating until 1940 have begun to advance.” The article continued, “the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.”
The New York Times noted that in 1972 the “mantle of polar ice increased by 12 percent” and had not returned to “normal” size.
North Atlantic sea temperatures declined, and shipping routes were “cluttered with abnormal amounts of ice.”
Furthermore, the permafrost in Russia and Canada was advancing southward, according to the December 29 article that closed out 1974."
October 19, 2007 at 10:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Thanks for the comments, Kstr - again, I do NOT believe that man CANNOT affect the climate in some way - I'm just not convinced that he is the MAJOR or SOLE reason for the latest climate shift. As the 2nd article stated, we are in the 4th major climate shift (yes 4TH) this century alone. 2 warming, 2 cooling. And we've only kept accurate records since the 19th century. Like the article stated:
"A 2003 study by Harvard and the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “20th Century Climate Not So Hot,” “determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years."
As for the ozone, I haven't researched that nearly as much, and don't have that much of an opinion on it. But, since I'm not aware of as much suppression of dissenting views on that subject, I'm more inclined to go along with the general scientific consensus. Now if a group of scientists start losing their jobs and getting ostracized and threatened for disagreeing, and some politician gets a Nobel Peace Prize for it, then I might have a stronger opinion! :)
I've enjoyed the discourse, lets keep on keeping ourselves and others informed :)
October 20, 2007 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )