Gore? Nobel??

The Only Forum for Non-Hockey Topics

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

carpenterguy
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 7:55 am

Post by carpenterguy » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:20 pm

theref wrote:Hey I'll help you out. Just go whatever way you want with this, okay.
theref: I'm simply asking you to clarify what you meant by saying that about Bush. I will say again, I never claimed he was a great president.

I have also never played right wing!

carpenterguy
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 7:55 am

Post by carpenterguy » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:24 pm

Great article!

Al Gore, UN panel share Nobel for Peace
By DOUG MELLGREN and MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writers

Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change jointly won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for fighting it.

Gore, who won an Academy Award earlier this year for his film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” had been widely tipped to win the prize.

He said that global warming was not a political issue but a worldwide crisis.

“We face a true planetary emergency. … It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity,” he said. “It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.”

The win is also likely add further fuel to a burgeoning movement in the United States for Gore to run for president in 2008, which he has so far said he does not plan to do.

Kenneth Sherrill, a political scientist at Hunter College in New York said Gore probably enjoys being a public person more than an elected official.

“He seems happier and liberated in the years since his loss in 2000. Perhaps winning the Nobel and being viewed as a prophet in his own time will be sufficient,” says Sherrill.

Two Gore advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to share his thinking, said the award will not make it more likely that he will seek the presidency. If anything, the Peace Prize makes the rough-and-tumble of a presidential race less appealing to Gore, they said, because now he has a huge, international platform to fight global warming and may not want to do anything to diminish it.

One of the advisers said that while Gore is unlikely to rule out a bid in the coming days, the prospects of the former vice president entering the fray in 2008 are “extremely remote.”

In its citation, the committed lauded Gore’s “strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.” …

In its citation, the committee said that Gore “has for a long time been one of the world’s leading environmentalist politicians” and cited his awareness at an early stage “of the climatic challenges the world is facing…

Would it be wrong to demand a recount? After all, what does giving a slide show with phony facts have to do with “peace”?

However, I guess it hardly matters. Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat had nothing to do with peace either. They also won for a lot of hot air.

But seriously, isn’t the rise of Islamic extremism around the world, which has taken the lives of Allah knows how many, isn’t that a greater threat to world peace than global warming will ever be?

Even if global warming is occurring, and even if the Earth’s temperature goes up a tenth of a degree in the next thousand years, so whateth? How many are going to die because of that? Will we ever know? (The mini Ice Age killed millions, and is thought to have brought on the Black Plague.)

On the other hand it is fairly easy to discern when someone has been slaughtered by a Muslim fanatic. And who in the world is trying to stop that? The UN? Al Gore?

The United States, especially the US military and our allies in the struggle against Islamic terror, should have been awarded any peace prizes that are being given out.

But how effective has Mr. Gore been, even against the bogeyman of Global Warming?


In its citation, the committee said that Gore “has for a long time been one of the world’s leading environmentalist politicians” and cited his awareness at an early stage “of the climatic challenges the world is facing.

Well, what did he do when he had the chance to effect a real change in US policy?

From Bill Clinton’s autobiography, My Life, page 638:


The Kyoto global warming talks opened on December 1 [1997]. Before they were over, Al Gore flew to Japan to help our chief negotiator, Undersecretary of State Stu Eizenstat, get an agreement we could sign, with firm targets but without undue restrictions on how to achieve them and with a call for developing countries like China and India to participate; within thirty years they would surpass the United States as emitters of greenhouse gases (the United States is now the world’s leading emitter).

Unless the changes were made, I couldn’t submit the treaty to Congress; it would be difficult to pass in the best of circumstances. With the support of Prime Minister Hashimoto, who wanted Kyoto to be a success for Japan, and other friendly nations including Argentina, the negotiations produced an agreement I was happy to support, with targets I thought we could meet, if Congress would enact the tax incentives necessary to promote the production and purchase of more conservation technologies and clean energy products.

So exactly how effective was Mr. Gore?

Obviously the changes weren’t made, since Mr. Clinton never submitted the agreement to the Senate for ratification.

Oh, well, the Nobel Prize committee has just made their accolade into that much more of a joke. Who knew that would even be possible?

How history will laugh.

Locked