Gore and IPCC win Nobel Prize

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Wot no Awesome Animal News? You have not been paying sufficient attention.

Ohh!!! Gaffer, that stung! Is my Awesome Animal News too low-brow for you smarty-smart overthinking types, now? Not intense and meaningful enough to merit serious consideration? You guys are killin' me over here...


And yes, definitely congrats to Gore, for the Peace Prize bestowation. (is that a word? maybe not - ) It's wonderful he got it; can you imagine how disgusting it've been if, say, Bush got the Nobel Peace Prize for his attempts to "spread Democracy" (wink wink, nudge nudge) in the world today? I shudder to think.


However...Al Gore, (or anyone) getting the Nobel Peace Prize for a movie... I don't know, I'm sure it was a cool movie/doc, but - the Nobel Peace Prize, for a film? I just - were there no other candidates in line at ALL who did anything at all more impactingly significant for peace in the world over the past year, up for this award? I mean, sure it was a good deed, for Al Gore to make a documentary film which discusses global warming, but - it was a movie, you guys. It was a movie. The Nobel Peace Prize, for a film by a politician? I just don't know...

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Ohh!!! Gaffer, that stung! Is my Awesome Animal News too low-brow for you smarty-smart overthinking types, now? Not intense and meaningful enough to merit serious consideration? You guys are killin' me over here......

Och, just my wee joke. Take no notice.

The world needs Awesome Animal News threads more than Yet Another Evolution Thread threads, for sure.



EDIT: Yes, it's a bit rich, but I think he gets it for the championing of the concept in a hostile environment (the US), rather than for the movie per se

It's all very well for Bono to go around wearing his shades for Africa, but he's a pop star and will sell more albums as a result. He certainly won't alienate any fans. Gore went around championing the bad news on climate change to an actively hostile audience and would have expected to lose currency amongst a potential electorate as a result.

So, Gore stood up for an unpopular principle. And it looks as though he has won. At least, it seems as if there has been a sea-change of perception stateside.

Put that against the background that for anything at all to happen in a co-ordinated, worldwide, have-any-chance-of-succeeding sort of way, it has to involve the US, and you have a major contribution from one man. OK, it's PR, but it's still a major contribution.

[durinsbane2244]

hm. funny to think they didn't give it to him for the internet.....

[inked]

Gore, championing global warming in a hostile environment?! O that is rich! Now, if he had done it in China or the Middle East or any of the top polluters and users of carbon, maybe he would have been in a hostile environment. Here he was protected by free speech laws and no interference with using his invention the internet. Now, China....

[hectorberlioz]

I look forward to the day when Al Gore is remembered solely for claiming to have invented the internet.

[The Gaffer]

He did do it in the top polluter and user of carbon. Your hostility towards him makes my point nicely.

[inked]

Gaffer, perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought China was the major polluter and CO2 producer. That was the basis of my comment. I'm thinking referenced so in TIME or NEWSWEEK or both within the past two weeks issues.

[The Gaffer]

You're right, my mistake. I'd forgotten that China did overtake the US this year in CO2 emissions. You're still light years ahead in per capita terms though.

But clearly, he should have emigrated to China, learned the language, become Chairman of the communist party and THEN he would be alright to make noises about climate change

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I look forward to the day when Al Gore is remembered solely for claiming to have invented the internet.

Why look forward to a day when someone is remembered for something he didn't do?

[inked]

THE CHICKEN BUSINESS

Don the chicken farmer was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called "pullets", and ten roosters, whose job it was to fertilize the eggs.

Don kept records and any rooster that didn't perform went into the soup pot and was replaced. That took an awful lot of his time, so he bought a set of tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone so Don could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. Now he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report simply by listening to the bells.

The Don's favorite rooster was old Butch, a very fine specimen he was, too. But on this particular morning Don noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! Don went to investigate.

The other roosters were chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing. The pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover.

But to Don's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one. Don was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

The result...The judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making: who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention ?

Vote carefully.

Happy nearing Winter Solstice celebrations! Did you hear the one about the Global Warming freaks who have a conference in Bali?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aPbfclqokwcw

Gaia's response:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc....ap/index.html

Too funny, actually!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

The Nobel Peace Prize, for a film by a politician? I just don't know...

I just wanter to say, here, that 'politician' isn't necessarily a complete descriptor of someone. That's the idea behind democracy, imperfect as it is, that people who have other training and often, jobs, make policy. Gore has been extremely effective on climate change. Surprising, but so.

[Tessar]

I have to admit that it bothers me that he won a Peace Prize for the movie... about 1/3rd of which had to do with his personal life... yes, sure, about why he feels so strongly about climate change, etc.

But REALLY. By the end I felt more like it was a 'lets praise Al Gore for what an amazing person he is' movie than an actually informative movie about global warming. And it bothered me too that he never really referenced sources... he kept talking about studies... and I kept wanting to ask, "WHAT studies?! Tell us which ones."

[Jonathan]

It's absurd to think that Gore got the Peace prize only because of his movie. That's what Academy Awards are for.

He's done a lot more than that in the past few decades. He's had hearings in the Senate, published editorials on climate change and in many ways tried to draw attention to the environment. And everyone remembers the Live Earth concerts this summer.
The Nobel Prize awarders took all of his past actions into account when they awarded him, not just his movie.

[The Gaffer]

Yes. And when you look at previous winners, he doesn't look too out of place.

[inked]

Would Al approve?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22899785-2,00.html

Of course, if one were really, really sincere about one's carbon footprint, suicide would seem to be a rational course................... ..........................but that never seems to occur to these geniuses.

Is it just me or do these sort of folks really suffer from logicitis? Have they removed their genes from the low-end of the pool onto dry ground?

One can hope.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by inked

Would Al approve?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22899785-2,00.html

Of course, if one were really, really sincere about one's carbon footprint, suicide would seem to be a rational course................... ..........................but that never seems to occur to these geniuses.

Is it just me or do these sort of folks really suffer from logicitis? Have they removed their genes from the low-end of the pool onto dry ground?

One can hope.

When I first saw the name of the article, I couldnt help but laugh. And heartily.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Would Al approve?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22899785-2,00.html

Of course, if one were really, really sincere about one's carbon footprint, suicide would seem to be a rational course................... ..........................but that never seems to occur to these geniuses.

Suicide isnt necessary since its quite possible to have a net NEGATIVE carbon footprint as an individual if you try hard enough. So in that way it has only helped that you were born and concerned enough to do something about global warming.

But you could take this thinking to its logical extreme (as you attempted) and say if we mass murder all individuals who dont care about global warming and are quite content to consume huge quantities of oil and raw resources in their over sized homes and SUVs and deliberatly operate with a mass consumption mentality then the environment would stand to benefit. Lucky liberals dont think like that eh? You conservatives would be in trouble.

[brownjenkins]

As I've said before, population growth will be the biggest problem we have to deal with in the next 100 years, and global warming is only a minor symptom of that.

But we won't, because the facts are too hard to swallow for most.

[inked]

IR, you might want to consider the liberal solution to inadequate food reserves in the enlightened communist state of Stalin before you get too certain about what liberals will or will not do.

BJ, you aren't going to reduce the population by pedocide (infanticide, toddlercide, kidocide, or adolescocide) are you? Suicide? Decreasing your carbon footprint by some combination of the two? Walk to work? Sell your SUV? Ride a bus? Is it just those other folks that need to reduce their population so we can maintain the inequality that is America consuming 50% of world resources for 5% of the population?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

IR, you might want to consider the liberal solution to inadequate food reserves in the enlightened communist state of Stalin before you get too certain about what liberals will or will not do.

Um, what does Stalinism have to do with liberalism? Of course, that's the type of question a believer in conservativeNazofascism might ask.