Al Gore and Nobel Peace prize
I like Al Gore and his message about getting our acts together and preserving our planet. I also liked an inconvenient truth and will continue to recycle and try to be more green; its the right thing to do.
However, I was surprised to learn that he won the Nobel Peace prize.
But given the power of celebrity it made sense that this could happen today. He did win an Oscar already so I guess a Tony or Grammy will be next if he does a stage and audio version...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20071017/cm_uc_crbbox/op_234124
However, I was surprised to learn that he won the Nobel Peace prize.
But given the power of celebrity it made sense that this could happen today. He did win an Oscar already so I guess a Tony or Grammy will be next if he does a stage and audio version...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20071017/cm_uc_crbbox/op_234124
Al Gore's Nobel Propaganda Prize
Wed Oct 17, 3:00 AM ET
Twenty or 30 years ago, the Nobel Peace Prize was considered to be among the most prestigious awards in the world. It helped make historic figures out of Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa and Lech Walesa. But in the last 20 years, its prestige has lessened as its political correctness has hardened.
It went from an award that championed human rights to an award that honored dictators and terrorists (Mikhail Gorbachev, 1990, or Yasser Arafat, 1994). It even honored frauds — Rigoberta Menchu, a Guatemalan Indian, was honored in 1992 upon the 500th anniversary of the historic voyage of that "oppressor" Christopher Columbus, based on an autobiography full of phony stories.
Today, the Nobel committee seems especially interested in using the Peace Prize to tweak American conservatives, honoring Jimmy Carter in 2002 (when it excluded him from Camp David accords honors in 1978) and now Al Gore in 2007. People are asking the obvious: How has Gore's alarmism on global warming aided world "peace"? The Nobel committee touted his efforts to "build up and disseminate greater knowledge about manmade climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." In other words, one has nothing to do with the other.
Gore's victory makes it look much more like a Nobel Progressive Prize, awarded to lionize the world's greatest promoters of socialist, command-economy boilerplate. With the emphasis placed so heavily on Gore's "educational" campaigning, it's really a Nobel Propaganda Prize.
Since Al Gore's eco-doom crusade is less about peace and more about the perils of chlorofluorocarbons, was his Nobel controversial? Of course not. The American news media are celebrating Gore with gusto. Poor Al, so cruelly rejected from his deserved posting at the White House by partisan manipulators at the Supreme Court, is finally getting his due as a global genius.
Margaret Carlson, who sang tributes to the glory of the Clintons and the Gores as Time magazine's White House correspondent in the 1990s, went on TV to declare that Gore "rose above a great injustice" in the 2000 election and "became a prophet on an issue that is crucially important to the world."
On ABC's "World News," reporter David Wright called it "sweet vindication" and "the culmination of an extraordinary journey" that began at Harvard in the 1960s. (How Gore supposedly argued for global warming when all the environmentalists saw a "global cooling" crisis in the 1970s was not explained.) ABC's "Good Morning America" was also gooey, with reporter Kate Snow saying Gore won for "helping awaken the world to global warming," and has now achieved "a personal milestone, vindication of a sort ... a new entry for the history books."
By the next morning, ABC was interviewing another environmental extremist, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and asking why anyone in America has failed to embrace and endorse Gore, and Kennedy blamed the media. That's a little odd with all the cheerleading for Gore all around him, but Kennedy — like most Kennedys — sees things differently.
The media have "let down American democracy" by allowing a global-warming debate. Why? "The reason is because of a massive propaganda campaign by the Exxon Corp. and by others — but largely funded by Exxon — that has been very, very successful at persuading the media not to cover this issue seriously and reporters simply don't go read the science." Kennedy memo to the hundreds of real scientists questioning global warming: shut up.
The cheerleading was so profound over Gore's Norwegian honor that some in the press began to tout him immediately as a "tantalizing prospect" for the presidency in 2008. (This comes weeks after the same network politicos kvetched that Fred Thompson was getting into the race way too late.) As part of their Nobel Prize party, NBC's "Today" anchors dialed up Jimmy Carter, who says Gore is the "best qualified person in American to be president." That alone should chill the Gore for President enthusiasm.
Since when is an endorsement from Jimmy Carter, one of America's worst presidents, great political news? Yet no one in the media really believes Gore will throw his hat in the ring now that he's wearing that left-tilting Nobel halo around his head. It was easy and cheap for them all to hail his qualifications for the job, without any worries he'd actually challenge Hillary for the White House.
There is nothing conservatives would enjoy more than the prospect of this earth-tone-wearing, lockbox-jargon-droning man to believe the media and throw his hat into the ring. Run, Al, run.
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Comments
-
what an irritating little article.
of course climate change has to do with peace. why would anything that decreases arable land (through flooding, salination, and erosion following severe storms) NOT also lead to more fighting? ditto for anything that decreases the availability of fresh water (through the same mechanisms)? why would the melting of the polar ice cap NOT set off territorial disputes over new trade routes and suddenly more valuable ports?
and don't even get me started on the notion that this isn't happening or -- worse -- the cynical folks who know it's happening but pretend they don't for feel-good political gain.
the article seems to proceed from the premise that being president is the very very very best thing in the world and that good presidents (whatever that means) equal the very best people ever. however much carter may have muddled through certain aspects of his presidency, he's done a few things since then, and most of them have been good for peace -- building houses for poor people reduces both suffering and civil unrest; promoting free elections furthers the cause of democracy, which is supposedly the thing we're (forcibly) spreading to all (oil-producing) people in the name of jesus christ and the easter bunny. if nothing else, free elections should give the US one less reason to send in troops. so there's a point for peace, right there.
i may not like that gore lost the election, but i'm glad he came out of his grizzly adams phase and used his visibility for a good cause. sure, he did promote himself along the way, too -- he IS a politician; what do you expect? -- but plenty of people would ONLY have promoted themselves. he did a positive thing, and i hope that praising him for it will promote global change. other people do good things, too, there are other important issues, and sure, other people might also have deserved the prize. i don't think that means he didn't deserve it.
/rant -
omg. the first two paragraphs alone had me retching. wtf? I hate self-righteous fuckers.
-
Seems like a better-written NY Post op-ed piece.
I'm surprised he didn't find Gen. Petraeus more deserving of the Nobel. That's been a doozy. -
I'm not sure that Gore's work, wonderful as it is, necessarily rises to the level of meriting a Nobel peace prize.
Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, is widely recognized around the world as a peacemaker of note. The Camp David accords which fostered peace between Egypt and Israel should have earned him one for that alone. And he's had one of the most productive post-presidencies of any president in living memory, serving the cause of peace, rather than going on the lecture circuit and earning $200,000 a speech.
And plus, he's a bad-ass! :twisted: He threw a major fit when Sudanese government officials tried to prevent him from talking with villagers in the Darfur region. He blew his top (and I don't recall ever seeing him angry) and basically defied the Sudanese, even when they threatened him with violence. He's 83! Heh, he's my hero.
Here's the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/10/03/darfur.carter.ap/ -
fwiw, Gore's environmentalism work started well before he was VP. I had to read his godawful book before I went off to college - I much prefer the powerpoint presentation as movie format of an inconvenient truth. so he's been engaged in the same battle for decades and we are finally, finally starting to see irrefutable evidence show up on the news on a regular basis.
I think the peace prize is well deserved.
as it was for jimmy carter in 2002. not sure what the beef is, lilb. he can't get it twice. -
hopefully gore won't use the award as a springboard for a presidential campaign.
-
witch-king wrote: hopefully gore won't use the award as a springboard for a presidential campaign.
Whatever, Gore has it good. Better than any president.
He has all the celebrity/political/monetary power without having to put up with the crap of being a president. What he's doing now is much more satisfying and it's what he loves. He's a good guy right now, why would he want to be president and lose that? Any how, he already stated again this week that he has no desire to seek the presidency. -
Gore/Obama '08!
The closest to a sure thing out there... -
Gore is extremely deserving, but I couldn't help wondering if Bono was sitting somewhere saying "why not me?" Thank God it wasn't him.
-
sweet tea wrote: of course climate change has to do with peace. why would anything that decreases arable land (through flooding, salination, and erosion following severe storms) NOT also lead to more fighting? ditto for anything that decreases the availability of fresh water (through the same mechanisms)? why would the melting of the polar ice cap NOT set off territorial disputes over new trade routes and suddenly more valuable ports?
Though I admired Gore's environmental work, I hadn't thought of it in these terms, and so I also wondered why the Peace Prize. Now I can see some justification. Thanks sweet tea. -
It's always been hard to take the Peace Prize seriously. Henry A. Kissinger? Yasser Arafat?
-
doctorj wrote: It's always been hard to take the Peace Prize seriously. Henry A. Kissinger? Yasser Arafat?
...not to mention Alfred Nobel, the prize namesake: inventor of dynamite...ahh, the irony.
I know Gore has been doing this for a while- even before his vice presidency. I hope he does NOT run for the presidency and hopefully this will 'soothe' him enough so that he doesn't feel like he has to run again. If he was going to run, it should have been in 2004, but not now. He'll just split the vote like Nader did in 2000 and put Romney or Giuliani in the White House. Also, there are too many Hillary and Obama Supporters out there now. Please Al, don't run again.
But for our democracy to succeed, we also have to stop with this 'Royal Family' complex we have in American politics: Bush/Clinton/Bush/...Clinton. Enough already. -
Gore's and the UN Committee's was a "Peace" prize because, in the words of the Nobel Committee...global warming, "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."
It is named after Alfred Nobel 'cause he left the money to do it, and when he died he left no explanation why "peace" was a category...According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "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". -
SevenOneEighty wrote: ...not to mention Alfred Nobel, the prize namesake: inventor of dynamite...ahh, the irony.
I believe I read somewhere that the guilt over his invention led him to establish the multiple prizes.SevenOneEighty wrote: But for our democracy to succeed, we also have to stop with this 'Royal Family' complex we have in American politics: Bush/Clinton/Bush/...Clinton. Enough already.
Which is why, I repeat, Gore/Obama '08 is the ticket. Al Gore is the only potential candidate that could enter the race right now and IMMEDIATELY raise more money than the Vatican. I understand and share your concern about the vote getting split three ways, but I think only the discovery of photos of them having sex with little boys could stop that ticket from winning the White House. Seriously.
Not to get all playground and infantile on ya but "You're mother is a dirty crack whore" is LESS of an insult among Republicans than "You like Hillary". In other words, I think her nomination would unleash a tidal wave of Republican unity that would leave her in the dust come election day.
I don't know what the Dems are thinking but this time it's gotta be for keeps. A Giuliani or Romney or Thompson presidency is unacceptable. But according to recent polls Sen. Obama can't even deliver the African-American vote (!); Hillary we've already discussed; and Edwards has no chance. THIS is why the Gore/Obama ticket is key. -
doctorj wrote: It's always been hard to take the Peace Prize seriously. Henry A. Kissinger? Yasser Arafat?
If you watch the Fox Nuisance Channel you would think only the latter has won it. That beacon of intellect and reasoning, Sean Hannity, recently said he would never accept such a thing because the Nobel Peace Prize had been awarded to a terrorist, in reference to Arafat. Funny that their boy Henry K, never comes up when they're dissing the award. Maybe it's because by their definition he's a terrorist, too. Hmm... -
MichaelKeys wrote: Not to get all playground and infantile on ya but "You're mother is a dirty crack whore" is LESS of an insult among Republicans than "You like Hillary".
I suspect it's also less of an insult to Dems than "Bush-lover." :PThat beacon of intellect and reasoning, Sean Hannity, recently said he would never accept such a thing because the Nobel Peace Prize had been awarded to a terrorist, in reference to Arafat.
Yeah, I'll bet he'd turn down all that prestige and a cash prize just 'cause he doesn't like Arafat. Wouldn't we all? :roll: -
See,
This is what worries me.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o
and remember this scare from the 1970s:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
and the global cooling scare made famous by the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek...
I'm just saying... -
Well, John Stossel never exactly impressed me with his scholarship.
And while you can find a few legitimate dissenters with any topic, just because there is dissent, doesn't make the concern any less valid.
Somehow I think caution is the better part of valor here. We may or may not be causing global warming, but wouldn't it be wise to reduce consumption (especially since key resources ARE running out and that is DEFINITELY our fault; peak oil production is predicted to happen in 2009, after which oil will be increasingly scarce and unable to meet the demand of the growing world economy) and recycle and all that stuff just in CASE what we're doing may have an impact? I think the precautionary principle applies here.
When I was a kid, snow fell every Thanksgiving. Now we're lucky to see it by February. -
Well, John Stossel never exactly impressed me with his scholarship.
I've always thought Stossel did a good job of pointing out flaws and myths and then backing it up with details and facts for perspective. the concerns are valid, I am a little worried about the cult-like, absolutes being spewed while still feeling like we don't have our heads completely wrapped around this one. It's not just dissent, it's dialogue that is being squashed ( i.e., "the debate is over", etc. as Stossel points out). That's never a good thing with large scientific theories involving the planet earth...
And while you can find a few legitimate dissenters with any topic, just because there is dissent, doesn't make the concern any less valid.
I am also concerned abut scientific flaws or inaccuracies that are then realized 25 years later....we do that often as pointed out in the "Global Cooling" theories. When I was growing up in the 1980s, the talk was of an inevitable second ice age coming...I cannot even remember if eggs are good for me or not,...
While I still like Gore and the overall theme of his message (f*cking up the planet, morons), I recently found out that some of the most compelling things in the film that made me a believer ( the Polar bears dying, the CO2/ temperature graph and a few others) were misrepresented or inaccurate ,either intentionally or by mistake, by Gore.
The UK is now using disclaimers before showing the film in Schools.
The fact that he brought awareness to the subject is important and it cannot be dismissed but I'm seeking truth here.
Many articles on the inaccuracies here:
http://tailrank.com/3169421/Court-Identifies-Eleven-Inaccuracies-in-Al-Gore-s-An-Inconvenient-TruthInaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
But The biggest thing for me was the graph he used showing the relationship between Co2 and temperature. Apparently, Gore had it reversed in their relationship...temperature rose and THEN Co2 rose.. and the graphs relationship was also misrepresented...Gore refuses to speak about this in interviews... why?
This article was first produced following an interim judgement of the High Court, since which time the full judgement has been given. In his full judgement the Judge listed nine inaccuracies rather than the 11 from the interim judgement - two appear to have been grouped together and another omitted. In the interests of clarity we have accordingly revised the details below.
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3751219&page=1The Debate Is Over?
The most impressive demonstration in Gore's movie is that big graph of temperature and carbon dioxide levels stretching back 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is thought to amplify temperature increases, but his graph seemed to show clear cause and effect: When carbon dioxide levels rose, so did temperature. It suggested that carbon levels controlled temperature. But a real inconvenient truth is that the carbon increase came after temperatures rose, usually hundreds of years later. Temperature went up first.
I wanted to ask Gore about that and other things, but he wouldn't agree to an interview. According to Gore, the "debate is over." -
lilbangladesh wrote: When I was a kid, snow fell every Thanksgiving. Now we're lucky to see it by February.
For the scientifically inclined, here is something to consider. This is not a political argument, but a scary scientific consideration:But who's to say that yesterday's temperature is the perfect one?
Mankind hasn't been here as long as some of the plant and insect species on this planet. Perhaps we are headed for a "correction" of temperature. Are we complete narcissist to think what happened during OUR childhood is the way things are supposed to be?OUR grandparents? I ask in all seriousness as it is the inclination of man to "act" and "do something".
Maybe Kilimanjaro is NOT supposed to have snow on it. Doesn't this also mean less people are going to freeze to death in winters in northern Europe and New York? Maybe the earth, as George Carlin joked, only needed man for the creation of Plastic, something it couldn't make on its own. Now it has it and its ready to shake us off - because we are irrelevant to the earth and universe.Greenland's temperatures rose 50 percent faster in the 1920s and reached higher average temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s than today's temperatures.
The earth is 4.5 Billion years old; we've been here for about 25,000 years..maybe...None of this necessarily works in our favor, mind you.
What if we are no more significant than the ants we step on? What if we are an infection on the planet that are getting ready to get a little sunlight disinfectant put on us? A-la Agent Smith (The Matrix): We take from earth, and we give nothing back: we are a virus. Scarier than an SUV, I think.
I'm just saying... -
Notice that I never accused Gore of being a scholar! He just popularized a subject and with popularization, inevitably, some inaccuracies filter through.
The one thing that IS a fact is that we are in the middle of the BIGGEST mass extinction our planet has ever seen. We have lost more species in the past fifty years than in any other previous mass extinction, most of which took hundreds to thousands of years. It's pretty clear that this mass extinction IS our fault because most of it is being caused by clearcutting the Amazonian rain forests. THAT cannot be Nature's plan, nor is it good for the environment as that rain forest and others like them did a lot to stabilize the world's climate as well as soaking up all that extra CO2.
I have no doubts that the Earth will survive us, but considering that I kind of have an interest in keeping the human species around, and that our species kind of DEPENDS on the health and well-being of other species, I think it would behoove us to do what we can to be less destructive, no?
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds









