Al Gore wins a Nobel Peace Prize - What a JOKE
May I step up on a soapbox for a moment? Good. Good.
(Hey, hey…two posts today!)
Albert Arnold Gore Jr. won a Nobel Peace Prize.
What? WHAT? Are you KIDDING me?
I used to think of the Nobel Peace Prize as something significantly meritable. Now I sadly shake my head and think it’s a bit of a joke. My admiration for the Prize, my esteem for it has been greatly depreciated because of this. Doing only a modicum of research into the intention and the implication of the Nobel Peace Prize leads to Alfred Nobel’s last Will and Testament. Outlining the prize standards is the following (emphasis mine):
”The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
So tell me, was it in the field of physics that Al made an important discovery? No.
Chemistry? No.
Physiology or medicine? No.
An outstanding work of literature? No.
A work of fraternity or peace between nations? No.
Oh wait! Excuse me! Apparently it was a work of fraternity and peace between nations. Really? How so? Can someone, anyone explain that to me? Reduction of armies? Promotion of peace? I don’t see it.
Not to say that the work he has done regarding the environment isn’t commendable. It is. He has brought it to the forefront of America’s consciousness. He talks a lot. That’s good. As far as DOING more than his fair share…the jury is still out on that one.
Does his work really deserve a very coveted, very honorable Nobel Peace Prize? Obviously I don’t think so. I also don’t feel like the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is worthy of this particular prize either. (Yes, yes, they do good work and it’s very important to the environment but even in their “Published Principles Governing IPCC Work” they don’t mention anything about bringing nations together or promoting peace or reducing armies.)
Do you think Al Gore and the IPCC deserve this prize?
Comments are invited but they will be moderated. Being polite is the key!
Filed under: Business, Environment, Inquiry, Odd news, Politics, Random Rambling, Rant, Science, Weather, World | Tagged: Al Gore, Environment, Nobel Peace Prize
Absolutely they do. It s the biggest issue in the history of humanity. In 20 years it will be the ONLY issue. Check previous winners and you may be hard pressed to make an immediate connection between the winner and contemporaneous world events. Often the winner is someone who has stubbornly insisted on solutions even if it were politically unpopular.
Imagine he had been elected President…
We’d have a president named…. Al?
AL?
egads!
Neath: Agreed. Environment IS the biggest issue in the history of humanity. I’m not sure how that translates to a “work of fraternity and peace between nations” such as the IAEA’s work against nuclear war or Maathi’s work for democracy, or Doctors Without Borders work of peace and medicine between nations…
“the biggest issue in the HISTORY OF HUMANITY”?
it takes some apples to make that statement.
True Damon. I think my intention was really that it is the biggest issue in the FUTURE of humanity. Maybe that is what neath means too but I can’t speak for him.
I do admire Al’s ability to make people think about the environment, but the Nobel “peace” prize doesn’t quite seem to be a good fit for the issues he has been trying to bring to the public’s attention. “Green” prize yes. But “Peace” prize, hmmm… not so sure about that one. (Disclaimer…. I am still a democrat).
I’m also unclear on the connection between the peace prize and gore’s “work” on global warming much as I’m not convinced that we should be so enamored with ourselves as to think that we are changing the patterns of nature. I believe, based on classes I had in college, that history shows that there have been multiple periods in the worlds history that the temp has changed drastically. Moreover, “the earth has an amazing ability to heal itself”…a quote from my liberal professor.
I think the “fraternity” point is that everyone on the planet is involved in the results of global warming and it will require an unprecedented level of international cooperation in order to give the planet the opportunity to heal itself.
I think it’s a sham. How does one refute that in the UK teachers are mandated by court order to tell their students his film contains 9 factual errors prior to showing it? His “great work” is flawed. I believe Al Gore’s role in stopping global warming is about as profound as his role in the formation of the internet. He’s a political ass who will say or do anything to get elected, stay elected, and stay in the spotlight - just like every other politician, regardless of political stripe. He does not deserve this award. Some REAL scientist who has actually worked on a research project related to global warming.
Al Gore wins a Nobel Peace Prize what a joke. He uses more power than everyone else. I would like to know who where loser that voted for him.
What a great post. Let’s all be liberal…OK - I can do that…but do we have to be crazy?
Manski~ Are you a complete moron? Did you make it through college? Do you actually think that what you are spewing out of your tailpipe is good for the environment or are you filling your tank with pixie dust? Almost every single scientist in the world has said that the world is trending towards a warmer climate faster than has been seen in history. I am a conservative, but cannot believe that we are doing any good burning fossil fuels. When people finally wake up and smell the exhaust we can all begin working together towards a definite cause of becoming more environmentally aware. Really, how can this be a bad thing?
I feel that Gore is an admirable person, taking up an unpopular cause, but not deserving of the “Prize.”
The unspoken effect of global climate change will be mass movement of peoples. This is the hidden danger no politician is willing to talk about. Mas movements of people have never been peaceful. Look at what happened in the small climate change in Europe during the third to eighth centuries after Christ. The Goths, the Visigoths and the Huns. All looking for usable arable land. They destroyed the Roman Empire in to process.
Al Gore, in attempting to alleviate Global Climate Change could well be saving not millions but billions of lives! Can you imagine a couple of billion Indians and Chinese moving into Africa or even into Southern, Central or Northern America? All the displaced European people when the Gulf Stream overturns and Europe freezes.
Not only does he deserve the prize, he also deserves our support. In our own self interest.
Oh, and @ manski, yes, the Earth does have a great ability to heal itself - but not with any special consideration of Homo Sapiens needs or desires.
It is also worthwhile to keep in mind the kind of resistance he faces. Sane informed folks may see them as political fringe, but there exists a coherent subculture in which Al Gore is characterized as a would-be tyrant cultivated fears in order to concentrate power in the hands of whomever Fox News, Rush Limbaugh et al. hate today. It is not at all the same as living in constant fear of professional assassins or spending years in a South African prison, but in his own way Al Gore has had to cope with punitive political resistance that is a throwback to more brutal and unreasoning times.
On the other hand, this makes it unfortunate that he has become the face of climate change science. He may be much more a scientist than typical “skeptics” but he remains a political figure with a political charge. To some degree I agree with this entry because I see Gore’s involvement as a mixed blessing. He was instrumental in promoting global cooperation during the Clinton administration, but Clinton’s successor demolished all that and raised barriers in its place.
Gore’s books and film have raised awareness of climate science, but his face on those projects bolsters the zeal and hostility of politically-motivated criticism. Even the most weekly written piece claiming to “debunk” Gore’s work is assured of great popularity as dittohead legions flock to any source that validates their convictions. In the end I suspect the Nobel Committee just wanted to make this year’s Peace Prize about global warming and Gore was behind the right issue at the right time. Continued media treatment of politically-motivated denials of scientific findings as if that constituted “balance” is the downside of it though.
Yes, Gore deserves the prize.
C’mon, maybe you are missing the significance of this. He is a clever man, no not a scientist or whatever, but this is a victory for public relations, including in no small way, a feature film whose main device was a digital slide presentation. Peace is about symbols and belief. Would the rate of climate change have been any different if Gore had won in 2000? Would it bollocks. But he’s a big man with a surprising amount of charisma, and people love and NEED that. Like they need a lay preacher.
He’s done an enormous amount for ‘peace’ whatever that is. Of course, if you actually think about what that is, it’s a nice but abstract ideal, one that is used by the powerful as an emotive weapon. Read for example John Ralston Saul on how the time since World War II has seen the most conflict in the history of civilisation. It helps us understand that our attraction to the Kennedys, Gores, Gandhis, Langes etc has been mostly realised in terms of a kind of sentimental catharsis and hardly at all as actions that shape humanity for the better.
Wow, I find that to be rediculous. How did he win it? I mean I know he didn’t support the war but c’mon the nobel prize!?
http://scott47.wordpress.com/
It is not a joke when you realize we are documenting the ‘fall of mankind’.
Makes sense to place people like Bush, Blair, Gore, Hussein, and _______ (fill in the blank with a blank of your choice), at the apex.
Pssst … in an upside down world, the apex is the sludge that collects at the bottom of the cesspool of humanity…
And once realized religion / politics was ‘organized crime’ at the highest levels institutionalized, the anomalies of the system become much clearer to this former member of … “we the sheeple”.
“I think my intention was really that it is the biggest issue in the FUTURE of humanity.”
What, are you Nostradamus or something? I’m pretty sure nuclear weapons and terrorism are the biggest threats to the planet in the “future”. People can survive on a warmer planet. People can’t survive nuclear warfare.
And how in the heck does his environmental crusade help “WORLD PEACE”? I’m going to say, nothing what-so-ever. Maybe he should have been awarded the Nobel Prize for outstanding literature! :o) (fiction of course)
I do admire Al Gore and he deserved the nobel prize.
I’ll put it simply…
If we do not address the damage we are doing to our environment there will be no peace…
Mass starvation… Wars over natural resources such as fresh water and arable land… Over crowding into more temperate climate areas…
That is why Al was given the peace prize.
You do realize a woman has won this award for planting trees in Africa, right? I mean, what SHE did was remarkable as well, but to say her and Mr. Gore’s accomplishments aren’t worth of one of our civilizations most prestigious awards is ridiculous.
I’m sorry, but his work in bringing together different nations of the world together to take action regarding climate change certainly qualifies as a work of fraternity between nations. (When the Nobel committe is using the word ‘fraternity’ they’re not talking about binge drinking college studednts-this may be the source of your confusion.)
Hey.it’s their prize… we don’t get to vote (think of the crazies that would make this selection seem positively mainstream otherwise).
Maybe I’m biased in thinking that real science is more important than talk and providing a face and noteworthy name to an issue, but here’s a suggestion: go to http://www.pubmed.com , type in “global warming” or “pollution” in the search engine and you’ll see names that are more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize if one was to be awarded for environmental work.
Cliff:
it’s not just the worlds most “prestigious award” as you termed it. It is a PEACE award. You don’t get the Peace prize just because you bake the best cookies, run faster than anybody else or plan the most trees.
The Novel Peace Prize has long been focused on social achievements rather than scientific achievements. I could see the merit in a Physics or Chemistry Prize for a person or team responsible for a major breakthrough in the area of climate science. However, the sticky wicket in this area is less to do with empiricism and more to do with politics. Most opinions on global warming, a scientific matter, are shaped by political belief.
While Al Gore is a slightly polarizing figure, the heart of his agenda involves letting sound science drive thinking on questions of scientific fact. As it is, it seems like the Nobel Committees dedicated to natural sciences have a keen focus on other areas. Thus the organization as a whole was guided toward the social dimension of this issue in order to put their clout behind raising awareness.
Your list of sciences are irrelevant, he didn’t win for Chemistry, economics, any other the others, just the peace award.
That being said, this is a total sham. He MADE A MOVIE. There have been tons of documentaries about global issues that were never praised like this. The committee pasted up people that single handedly made a difference, a woman who saved 2500 children form the nazis, an organization who helps national disaster victims all over the globe. He didn’t discover global warming, he didn’t find a way to fight it, he made a movie (with several scientific inaccuracies) that made the Oscars “go green.” Let’s give Leonardo De Caprio a peace prize for bringing attention to the diamond trade. Or how about the other million documentaries that expose problems to humanity.
Al Gore’s role in this issue goes far beyond his film and book. Astute historians might recall at one point he was Vice President of the United States. Also, Hollywood producers are just one subset of the various influential people persuaded to take this subject seriously by his personal presentations. Also, while An Inconvenient Truth may not be scientifically flawless, every critique I’ve ever seen, from right-wing bloggers to disingenuous CNN anchors, was more scientifically flawed than the original work itself.
I don’t doubt that the committee may have decided to make global warming the issue, then selected Gore almost by default. However, in doing so they recognized more than a decade of hard work on this issue — not a single project.
Thoughtsarethings
The data does not show that temps are increasing at a faster rate than they ever have. I do not believe that pollution is good for our health but I also do not believe that it is necessarily the cause of global warming. Look at the data. Look at the historical temp records going back to 425,000BC. What you WILL see are large fluxuations both several thousand years ago as well as more recently. Explain those to me… What caused them? Cars? Factories?
What I did say is that I do not believe that we can assume that we are causing the changing weather patterns. Given the historical record of massive changes in temps, I continue to believe that argument is solid. If I were you I would have argumed something like, CO2 levels are at the highest we’ve ever seen versus calling me names. That doesn’t make a good argument…unless you have no facts to support your argument on.
UCLA ‘95
Here is a website with historical data for anyone who cares to learn something…
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm
Scientists largely in harmony with Gore’s views on global warming are not ignorant of past ice ages. Yet it is a pretty sleazy trick to use those fluctuations (as illustrated at the URL in Manski’s last comment) or other natural variances to be dismissive of what is happening today. It doesn’t take a great deal of effort to become educated about the science on this, though for some reason many people go to great lengths to become versed in pseudoscientific denials.
Many of the natural climate variations from prehistory would devastate agriculture, commerce, public health, etc. if they were to occur in our times. To argue that climate change ought to be accepted because it can occur naturally makes no more sense than to argue that we should not be concerned about human efforts to destroy a city in a fiery explosion because sometimes nature (e.g. Pompeii) has done likewise.
The planet will keep on turning regardless, but the well being of humans is not immune to all consequences of non-cataclysmic change. There may be legitimate dispute about the extent of economic devastation global warming is likely to cause, and surely there is dispute about to what extent it can be minimized by emissions reduction. However, the link between atmospheric carbon and global warming is only controversial to people intent on misinforming or becoming misinformed. As small as that effect may be, it is still enormous in the context of delicate natural balances — balances upon which a huge portion of humanity’s food, drinking water, and high value real estate presently rest.
A sleazy trick to use facts? Easy to become educated in the science? Did you graduate from college?
Wow. Those two comments alone explain a lot. I would think an “exceptional debator” would use facts. It also explains why you are ignorant enough to think that we should be trying to direct climate change to our liking…
It was less than two hundred years ago that Europe was freezing in a “Little Ice Age”…yes, that is a fact… Climates change. They always have. They always will. The earth will move in the direction it needs to heal itself regardless of what humans would prefer.
The facts are not in dispute (at least for my part . . . the whole “heal itself” stuff is quite a stunner to throw down unsupported like that.) I could be a kindergarten student and still be capable of grasping that not everything that happens in nature is desirable. Of course, what is happening now is not natural at all — it is a consequence of human industry that in some ways resembles resembles natural climate change.
Look at it even more simply — sometimes tigers kill and eat people. Does this mean there should be no effort to stop people from murder and cannibalism? Real harm is ongoing and certain to become much more severe because of a zero responsibility policy on greenhouse gas emissions. Sensible people might well argue about where to strike a balance between protecting traditional components of the energy sector and working to stabilize the world’s level of atmospheric carbon. To deny that it is happening, or that it will have severe consequences on a wide range of economic activities, is just plain wrong.
To be so boldly wrong while harping away at matters like educational credentials makes me believe what we have here is nothing more than a political ideologue passionate about scientific beliefs that are at odds with scientific realities. If we set aside the outright hostility, all that is left is repetition of the “climate changes naturally so why worry?” argument. I would think someone so proud of his or her own education would do a much better job applying it to the matter at hand.
Off the subject, but did you all know that Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were all nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? None of these three actually won the prize, but still….
But no, I do not believe that Al Gore deserves a prize for anything I can think of just off the top of my head. I liked Amber’s comment…I tend to agree with her.
As a student of history I’d like to bring a different bent to this debate.
It was not very long ago, in historical terms, that European scholars and rulers declared that the end of humanity was upon them.
The reason?
Europe had run out of wood. It was wood that warmed the continent, cooked food, created weapons, and built structures. And it was wood that Europeans had become destructively dependent upon. And it was the lack of wood that had soothsayers predicting the end of humanity.
Not surprisingly, humanity survived. In fact, one could argue it even flourished beyond any expectations.
How could this be?
Right around this time a little used substance that would dramatically change the world once again was found in great quantity.
Coal.
A world saving coincidence? Pure luck? I think not.
When faced with threats of all kinds (economically, environmentally, etc.) humans have a knack for innovation and adaptation.
Nobody debates the climate is changing. The earth is heating up. Not surprisingly so is planet Mars. (link) Humans surely have some effect on the environment, but we would be very high-minded to believe that we are important enough to destroy the world. Similarly, we would be equally high-minded to believe we can single-handedly fix a warming environment. The sun, as it has since time began, warms and cools. It is warming, and thusly, so is our earth.
Are we innocent of all environmental change? Nope. We’re humans. We pollute.
Are we guilty of ALL environmental change? Nope.
Are humans going to fade away to dust?
No. Innovation will take place. It is already starting. We will find the “coal” of the future and it will power a growing human race. It will be clean, sustainable and plenteous.
And the beauty of it all?
Think of how much coal changed the world. Think of how that singular change advanced human technology and way-of-life.
Now think about how amazing our budding new energy revolution will similarly change our world!
Friends, let the “soothsayers” of today scream and cry and predict the “end of the world”. They too play an important role for keeping us aware and reminding us of the importance of continuing, and perhaps quickening, our environmental innovation.
And though they will be inevitably wrong, we can be truly grateful for their passionate cry.
People throw around the term straw man a great deal without really understanding its meaning. Yet here we have an example that may illustrate the concept clearly. Neither Al Gore nor any other responsible public figure addressing this issue has claimed that it could bring about “the end of the world.” Gore himself goes to great pains to clarify that no such claims have been made, yet still they keep being pinned on him by dishonest pundits and their equally dishonest (or gullible) devotees.
What he is claiming, and what wouldn’t be controversial among any group of honest informed people, is that ongoing global warming will bring about widespread economic upheaval. In the name of protecting the profitability of fossil fuel industries, the profitability of countless others is being dismissed as irrelevant or falsely characterized as impervious to harms from climate change.
Of course we should adapt — that is the essence of the argument for trying to apply some sort of restraint to carbon emissions in the first place. It is the cottage industry of global warming denial, heavily subsidized by the deep coffers of a few large corporations, that endeavor to keep humanity stuck on the old ways of producing energy when it is true that new ways (apart from reducing atmospheric carbon emissions) offer the best hope for progress and prosperity in the future.
Manski~ I don’t have all day to convince you, but here is a small sampling of the plethora of data. Here are some crackpots at some agency called NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
“Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. Climate models show that the rate of warming is consistent with expectations (5). The observed rapid warming thus gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions (6).”
In response to your other comment: “I’m not convinced that we should be so enamored with ourselves as to think that we are changing the patterns of nature.” If you truly graduated from UCLA perhaps you looked up at the LA skyline and saw a brown haze, and how much humans effected the atmosphere, every single day! I think we can safely say that we alter the patterns of nature, when officials warn you to stay inside due to high levels of pollution in the air.
Please, I don’t mean to be unkind, but I really don’t want to leave this world worse than I found it, for the sake of my young son, and everyone’s future.
Not to tire you all of historical slants, but something “thoughtsarethings” brought up in the previous comment reminded me of a fun fact I learned in my Native American History studies.
Our prior commenter shared with us some great obvservations about the LA skyline. I think we’ve all seen some pretty nasty pictures of that. But here is an interesting tidbit that might help you understand the particular problem the area faces, and cause you to be less brash in jumping all over percieved air pollution.
The natives living in the Los Angeles Basin also noticed that the entire area was “hazy”.
This, obviously, was not because of factories or gas-burning vehicles.
Follow me here…
Under typical atmospheric conditions, air near the surface of the Earth is warmer than the air above. This warm air, through the process of convection, rises into the upper atmosphere and is replaced by cooler air, which is in turn heated by the Earths surface. In this dynamic cycle, dust and pollutants are transported into the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) and dispersed, and ozone forms, where it is beneficial in blocking harmful UV radiation from the sun.
But in the Los Angeles Basin the process is reversed because the ground is kept cool from the ocean air and warm air from the eastern desert flows over the mountains around the basin, creating an Inversion Layer. Airborne pollutants in the cool air below are trapped by the layer of warm air above, resulting in a stagnant pool of smog.
This, obviously, is not an excuse for over polluting. But just so you know, even hundreds of years ago the entire area was know for being naturally ‘hazy’. If Los Angeles were located in an area that did not have an Inversion Layer, perhaps it would not have it’s reputation.
That being said, I hate Los Angeles.
As far as I know, the underlying facts above are entirely true. However, as presented they could mislead some people into believing that the smog problem in LA is only a function of the area’s unusual geography. The sheer vastness of human development in the area, substantial industrial output, enormous seaport activity, and even an irrational aversion to mass transit infrastructure all contribute to the modern extent of that smog.
It is wise not to let people get away with overstating the cause for concern by ignoring the peculiar behavior of air masses in that region. Yet it is also wise not to let people get away with dismissing the entire phenomenon as a function of that natural quirk. After all, if the matter were so simple, then history would not reveal the serious decline in air quality during the middle of the 20th century nor the measurable improvements following from policy changes like California’s strict automotive emissions standards.
Demonweed,
I certainly agree and never said that Los Angeles was blameless in their pollution.
Just wanted to point out the environmental anomaly they must contend with.
In the circumstances he lost the Presidency shall be remembered as much as the Nobel.
What a load of crap.
Global Warming has done nothing for peace.
The movie has a tremendous POLITICAL bias.
It’s supporting data is from the IPCC.
The IPCC is actually a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, with POLITICAL bias.
Many credible scientists claim the IPCC data is scientifically vague, biased, and unsound.
Following this precedent, the term Nobel Laureate will certainly have lost a bit of its grandeur, as in:
“So and so won the Nobel Prize!”
“Oh really, was that pre or post Gore”
“Post”
“Ohhh, I see… umm why don’t we talk about the weather!”
Oh, how Nobel must be turning in his grave.
Kudos to you for trying to take the meaning of the prize seriously. But do you think Henry Kissinger or Yasser Arafat deserved it? <-Loaded question, I know, sorry. My point is that perhaps Nobel’s intentions had already been compromised.
I can see some merit in the Gore decision, in some ways; preventing or mollifying the future desperation for survival is definitely helpful for peace between nations. BUT, as you say, the jury is still out on whether he’s really doing that.
“Comments are invited but they will be moderated. Being polite is the key!”
I guess that’s just a generic statement at the end of all the blogs, because these comments certainly haven’t been moderated. While a few have stuck to the subject, most took the opportunity to express their right wing or liberal views. Just another example of how few people are truly informed.
Just a request to those who oppose or support Gore’s win of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Look who else won it and for what.
Actually look into what Gore has actually done and continues to do.
Examine Gore’s supposed future political ambitions in search of motive.
Ask yourself if you actually believe that we are NOT headed for worsening issues in climate and weather.
Ask yourself what YOU have done for your convictions and for benefit of others.
Above all, be honest and look at both sides of the issue fairly.
You may have a opinion differing from my own, but prove to yourself your opinion is based on objectivity and not emotional assumption.
—————————–
“Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little”- Edmund Burke
Al Gore is just a hypocrite. He flies around the world in his private jet, telling everybody to go green. He can’t even get his facts straight.
Yes Bill, the comments have been moderated. Some comments have not been allowed due to their extreme nature in language and disrespect.
Regarding whether the comment sticks to topic or not (as YOURS clearly does not) I’m allowing the commentor to decide.
Gore doesn’t own a jet, Roadgeek. Does that change your assessment in any way?
Does a guy have to run a school out of his house before he can be a sincere advocate for public education? Is it necessary to personally feed and shelter senior citizens in order to promote a program like Social Security? It seems the dittohead mafia has a pretty bizarre notion of hypocrisy. To them it is fine that a man who clutters the airwaves with moral crusades about the misogyny of rap artists should turn out to be relentlessly crude in his personal life. To them it is fine that a man who regularly belittles other celebrities for their substance abuse problems should merrily gobble addictive painkillers by the handful.
Yet when a man makes a serious call for constructive public policy change, it is demanded of him that he be a living exemplar of the most extreme interpretation of his agenda? Al Gore would only truly be hypocritical here if he were unwilling to pay more for air travel and more for household energy, insofar as those things produce a carbon footprint. As far as I know, he is perfectly willing, even eager, to put his money where his mouth is. He may not live up to some bogus standard that profoundly misses the point, but when it comes to true hypocrisy I don’t sense the stink of it on him . . . unlike the loudest of his critics.
Poor Al Gore.
On the right hand he has idiots bashing him and on the left hand he has idiots defending him.
Maybe he DOES deserve a prize.
Demonweed: No, but the sincere advocate for public education that DOES run a successful school out of his house is more worthy for a prize than one who doesn’t. In my post I am not saying that Al Gore’s talk about the environment isn’t good, I’m just saying that he didn’t discover “global warming” and he’s not out there doing the research, gathering the data and discovering the “cure”.
I’ll grant that Al Gore is not the ideal person to be the public face of global warming activism. Even if it is not a consequence of his own behavior, he has become a politically polarizing figure. I believe the Nobel committee was making a concession to practical realities. The House of Saud is clearly not an ideal entity to control a key source of oil in modern times, but if we are to respect international sovereignity then our choices are limited to doing business with them or having less influence on the world oil market.
Since the Peace Prize is not a scientific award but rather an award for social achievement (and an award that raises more awareness when given to an individual than a faceless organization) the committee made the best of a tough choice, as I see it. In any case, my previous comment was mainly to repudiate the hypocrisy charge rather than to challenge the original post.