If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Former Vice President Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change today won the Nobel Peace Prize for their work drawing attention to global warming. The honor comes as a group of Democrats is urging Gore to enter the White House race.
How bout that...
FM
"Nowadays everyone is a fucking DJ." - Jack Dangers
What record did you loose your virginity to?
"I don't like having sex with music on- I find it distracting. And if it's a mix cd- forget it. I'm stopping to check the beat mixing in between tracks." - Tom Stephan
not seeing how this is at all related to peace. but then, he certainly wasn't going to win it under any of the science categories...
Well, the official criteria for the award is as follows:
"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
I'm assuming it was awarded pursuant to the boldface part, which is fairly consistent with the notion that global warming is a problem that is (by definition) global in nature. Even if you think global warming is bullshit and that we're spinning our wheels by trying to do anything about it, it's hard to dispute that addressing it is an effort that requires international cooperation.
I didn't vote for Gore when I had the chance back in 2000 (a decision I've been kicking myself for ever since), but my reaction to this is, more power to him. It's become such a needlessly partisan issue, IMO.
oh. i see. the 'most' qualifier gives him the win. if you fly all over the world profiteering on inconsistent science and faulty conclusions, then by all means...construe it as peace.
-i'd also say that it may cause others to question the validity of the work of other nobel prize winners...
you could put an Emfire release on for 2 minutes and you would be a sleep before it finishes - Chunky
it's RA. they'd blow their load all over some stupid 20 minute loop of a snare if it had a quirky flange setting. - Tiddles
so we use a biased piece of shit film to bring nations together? now most nations are coming together to figure out how to ban it before it warps people's brains. haha, this award is pointless.
Should I fuck you at that not until the ass, inject then tremendously hard bumschen and to the termination in the eyes yes?
Gore's movie was actually good. However, I don't think people are taking what he says serious. At some point in the future, we may need to start discussing moving people and infrastructure away from the coastline due to flooding from Global Warming.
Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake - Napoleon Bonaparte
I always wonder if people would have such a vitriolic reaction to global warming if the message wasn't delivered by Al Gore. Seems like many would cut off their noses to spite their faces on this issue. What if Gore didn't receive the award, but the IPCC did, alone. Would you be so up in arms?
It is not as if I listen to Al Gore and lap it up. I listen to Al Gore and the entirety of the scientific community (save a few paid partisan hacks) and think it's something that maybe we ought to look into.
What exactly is the downside of protecting our environment, by the way? Let's say we're wrong about global warming but decide to protect our planet anyway? As I have probably mentioned in dozens of other threads on this topic, there are loads of reasons to live greener that have zero to do with global warming.
For what it's worth, he's not receiving this award for "An Inconvenient Truth" alone -- he's been at this for a while. Remember back in 1992 when the elder Bush called him "ozone man?"
Gore's movie was actually good. However, I don't think people are taking what he says serious.
i understand that some people really like that movie. to each their own. but this movie in my opinion was horse shit. it was taking the truth and bending it 10 fold. yeah, he has a point and global warming is an issue that we can help prevent to some degree, but he obscurred the facts so badly that you can't use that to base your judgement on global warming. ffs, the UK won't even show it in their schools because of the fact that manyof gore's statements are obscurred to the nth degree. and a lot of school in the US make the disclaimer before showing their students that this is a fictional documentary. i hope the peace prize wasn't based on the film's "accuracy" and just the fact that he raised awareness.
Should I fuck you at that not until the ass, inject then tremendously hard bumschen and to the termination in the eyes yes?
i don't think there is a dispute about global warming, as much as a dispute about what may be causing it. If it's man-made, that's one thing...otherwise, all of the solutions that have been proposed so far will bring little in way of relief. if you don't get the cause and effect right, how can there be any discussion on solutions?
toasty, you make a great point on the idea of cleaning up the environment: why not, indeed! However, this may be at the cost to those in developing countries. Again, not saying global warming doesn't exist...but if one says that global warming is man-made, and then collectively we pass legislation limiting industrialization of countries to perhaps stop future warming trends....... and we later find out that the warming we are currently seeing is not, in fact, based on human productivity.....what then? Are we just supposed to say to the impoverished nations and those in poverty....to just live with this?
you could put an Emfire release on for 2 minutes and you would be a sleep before it finishes - Chunky
it's RA. they'd blow their load all over some stupid 20 minute loop of a snare if it had a quirky flange setting. - Tiddles
what he's doing is good, byt how is it related to peace exactly? or is that just the name for a bigger prize?
I think a lot of people look at peace as just the opposite of war, but it's really bigger than that -- and the way Nobel defined the criteria for his prize, I'm not even sure it's accurate. Look at Saddam Hussein's relationship with the Shias and Kurds when he was in power -- he held them down with an iron fist, and although there wasn't actual armed back-and-forth conflict in the traditional sense, you can hardly call that a state of peace. The relationship between the US and the Soviets was hardly peaceful, notwithstanding that no shots were actually fired. Even more current is the situation between the US and Iran -- we're not at war, but I'd hardly call ours a peaceful relationship.
Point is that Nobel seemed to view "peace" as a broader concept than just the absence of armed conflict. When countries work together to focus upon common goals, the notion of an "enemy" dissipates and war becomes far less likely.
I know that sounds like I'm some sort of peacenic-Polyanna or something, but keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that if we all just sit together, sing Kumbayah and pick daisies, everything will be OK. Fact is, though, that at a fundamental level, people probably have more in common with one another than not, and most people have the same basic goals -- happiness, prosperity, security, etc. Working together on things where we have a common interest is much more likely to bring about a state of real and lasting peace than focusing upon the areas where we have differences. I think that's what Nobel's prize is all about, and that's why a guy like Gore can be a viable candidate.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go have a big bowl of granola while I watch Care Bear reruns.
but if one says that global warming is man-made, and then collectively we pass legislation limiting industrialization of countries to perhaps stop future warming trends....... and we later find out that the warming we are currently seeing is not, in fact, based on human productivity.....what then? Are we just supposed to say to the impoverished nations and those in poverty....to just live with this?
I get that attacking global warming doesn't come without trade-offs, but your argument here kinda assumes that the sole response to global warming is to pass legislation limiting industrialization of developing countries. I suppose that's one way to go about it, but there are loads of other options as well.
To the broader point, though, I don't think anyone seriously thinks that we could just abruptly stop doing things the way we've been doing them for years. It's a process, and the process begins with the recognition that this is something that might be within our control. Once a decision is made to try to do something collectively, there are loads of bright and innovative people on this planet and I think we'll find that there are lots of options available to us that are all over the spectrum in terms of cost, effect, risk, etc. Deciding to get past the partisan nonsense and deciding that it's something that is worthy of consideration, though, is the first step. Deciding to do something and deciding what to do should logically be separate parts of the process, IMO.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment