It was just released a few minutes ago. Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his widespread awareness of global warming.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071012/ap_on_re_eu/nobel_peace

I, for one, am glad that he received it.

He shares the honour with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

As far as I'm aware Al Gore is the first Nobel laureate to also have received an Oscar for the same effort...!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1): As far as I'm aware Al Gore is the first Nobel laureate to also have received an Oscar for the same effort...!

And an Emmy. Too bad he lost to the village idiot.  

Great now we get to listen to his dribble everyday on the "news." Great.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1): As far as I'm aware Al Gore is the first Nobel laureate to also have received an Oscar for the same effort...!

Yeah, not everything G.W.B. does is bad  

Shows how silly the once-esteemed Nobel Prize has become.

Here is what the British Court decided about Gore's movie, after the Government tried to make it part of the school curiculum:

Quote: 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.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): Shows how silly the once-esteemed Nobel Prize has become.

The IPCC aggregates the state of scientific climate research worldwide on behalf of the UN.

Al Gore promotes awareness about the finiteness of our resources and the risks of CO2 pollution.

Nothing silly about either of the two.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): Here is what the British Court decided about Gore's movie, after the Government tried to make it part of the school curiculum:

And the same judgment that criticized the validity of some of the peripheral conclusions (partially based on more recent scientific research) explicitly confirmed the validity of the main statement of the movie and deemed it fit to be used in the classroom for information purposes.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): Shows how silly the once-esteemed Nobel Prize has become.

When was the Nobel Peace Prize last esteemed?

Arafat? Kissinger??? This particular Nobel prize has always been politically motivated. People with lots of blood on their hands have unashamedly accepted this honor.

There were years when the committee esteemed no-one deserved the prize. I for one haven't seen a lot of peacemaking efforts anywhere recently. And I don't see how pointing out that a lot of snow is melting advances peace in the world.   

Congrats to Gore nevertheless, although if you want to honor him, create a "environmental awareness" category or something.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): And the same judgment that criticized the validity of some of the peripheral conclusions (partially based on more recent scientific research) explicitly confirmed the validity of the main statement of the movie and deemed it fit to be used in the classroom for information purposes

What part of the following did you not understand?:

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.

In other words, it is a propaganda piece, not a documentary, no more so than Triumph of the Wills was for Adolf Hitler. It is meant to create and encourage a market of idiots who will buy into anything "green". And isn't it interesting how Al Gore owns a bunch of these companies created to sell Indulgences, err, excuse me, "carbon offsets", which are nothing but a scam.

Gore's movie was motivated by money and political power, which he "loans" to people who please him. Any actual informational value the film may have (and I don't doubt that they have a few grains of truth in there - lies are easier to accept if coated with some truth), it was accidental, and incidental to the primary purpose of the film - money and power.

It is political correct to give the prize to Al Gore.
That is how it works today.

What a complete crock of crap. Worse than giving it to President Carter specifically for his political stance rather than actual work he's done that merited the prize.

Quoting Toast (Reply 7): When was the Nobel Peace Prize last esteemed?

I'd say it was when people who actually worked for world peace were awarded the prize.

Quoting Bofredrik (Reply 9): It is political correct to give the prize to Al Gore. That is how it works today.

Holy crap. I'm in full agreement with Bofredrik.....I'm going to lay down now. The room is spinning.

I don't have anything against Gore, but is this the "best of the best" in terms of potential Nobel Peace Prize candidates?

It's not like HE did studies himself, or more importantly, devised SOLUTIONS for reducing emissions or their effect.

He basically cobbled together information for a film, and narrated it. I do that every day in the print medium.

Is that worthy of this award? Or is the field of candidates so thin? Or has the patina of the Nobel Peace Prize worn off?

(By the way, the comments from the Literature winner were priceless...she totally dismissed her award)

Politics aside, I do think it's important to at least try and be a good steward of the only planet we have.

The PROBLEM is that there seems to be no middle ground. Like so many other issues, it seems to be an "all-or-nothing" issue: If the GOP Plutocrats had their way, every last inch of free standing exposed earth would be paved over. And if the Greenpeace Froot Loops had THEIR way, we'd all be living in mud lean-to huts subsisting on granola and nuts.

Obviously, neither is really a viable option and therein lies the rub.

Look, I don't understand why Al Gore and his disciples hate the US so much. I think a big problem with their approach is that they take an elitist "we know what's better for you more than you do" approach that in essence is a "do as we say, but not as we do" paradigm.

More to the point: If Mr Gore would ditch the 757 jets, limousine enterage's and maybe step down a notch or five in his home, he might actually get some respect as well as followers beyond the already converted.

Until then, him (as well as the Hollywood Limousine Liberals) will continue to be ignored as the hypocrites they are.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD-Would do anything to preserve the forests. And my right to drive there as well.

Interesting that two politicans that are very controversial in their own country have achieved this honor: Jimmy Carter and Al Gore !!

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8): In other words, it is a propaganda piece, not a documentary, no more so than Triumph of the Wills was for Adolf Hitler.

You're just disqualifying yourself with nonsense like that.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8): It is meant to create and encourage a market of idiots who will buy into anything "green". And isn't it interesting how Al Gore owns a bunch of these companies created to sell Indulgences, err, excuse me, "carbon offsets", which are nothing but a scam.

Science is always open to more substantial evidence and more convincing explanations. At this time climate researchers actively evaluating the evidence increasingly come to the conclusion which is merely concentrated by the IPCC: That the global climate is changing, and that human influences appear to be the main driver behind it.

Since scientists actually working in the field are consistently switching to Gore's "side" on the issue, your energies would be better spent convincing the scientists if you think they're wrong.

By your reasoning, Gore would have to have them all bribed and manipulated for his own material benefit. But there are actually people on the planet which have other priorities.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10): What a complete crock of crap. Worse than giving it to President Carter specifically for his political stance rather than actual work he's done that merited the prize.

I see. That must be why the official reason was: "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development":

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10): Quoting Toast (Reply 7): When was the Nobel Peace Prize last esteemed? I'd say it was when people who actually worked for world peace were awarded the prize.

Here is the complete list:

All Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

Some of them can certainly be debated, but all in all the awards are certainly valid and defendable.

Quoting Continental (Thread starter): I, for one, am glad that he received it.

Gone are the days when guys like Teddy R. and ML King won it - now we have the days when Jimmy Carter (failure w/Iran), Arafat (terrorist poster boy) and Gore (political spin doctor) win.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1): As far as I'm aware Al Gore is the first Nobel laureate to also have received an Oscar for the same effort...!

And maybe if he writes a book on it, he'll win a Pulitzer and go for the sweep. Too bad he didn't win for "The Assault On Reason". Sing us a song, Al, and we'll lobby for your Grammy. Hey, maybe they can put on a play about it, and he can win a Tony, too! Maybe his buddy DiCaprio will star. Any other "awards" I'm missing?      I suggest the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): Shows how silly the once-esteemed Nobel Prize has become. Here is what the British Court decided about Gore's movie, after the Government tried to make it part of the school curiculum:

Good stuff!

This "award" satisfies the elitists, alarmists and willfully uninformed. Among critical thinkers, one can choose to   ,   ,    or simply offer a   .

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8): What part of the following did you not understand?

Remember, it's being willfully uninformed. He got dressed-down (again) in the global warming thread (which included a reference to another undressing he suffered in a previous thread). He may well go for three here. And he's trying . . .

Quoting Klaus (Reply 14): Here is the complete list: All Nobel Peace Prize Laureates Some of them can certainly be debated, but all in all the awards are certainly valid and defendable.

Quoting Matt D (Reply 12): Politics aside, I do think it's important to at least try and be a good steward of the only planet we have. The PROBLEM is that there seems to be no middle ground.

Agreed and agreed.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 15): This "award" satisfies the elitists, alarmists and willfully uninformed.

Your apparently superior judgment would then apply as well to a still further increasing majority of the scientists actually working on the issue.

You can yell as much as you want, but I prefer their company on the issue. You may yet turn out to be right about everything. I just wouldn't bet on it if I were you.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 14): Some of them can certainly be debated, but all in all the awards are certainly valid and defendable.

Certainly some can be debated, but recently they appear to have become a tool for the political left of the world who appear to be in control of the process.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 14): I see. That must be why the official reason was: "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development":

Please.....don't be disengenuous. He was awarded when he was for his outspoken and often insulting opposition to President Bush.

Let's not be coy here. I'm a personal fan of President Jimmy Carter until he does silly shit like break the protocol about commenting on successors (a protocol from which he benefitted) and endorsed non-democratic players as democratic because of political feelings (i.e. Ortega pre-democracy, Chavez and others) and finally his disastrous nuclear deal with the North Korea where he put us in a position to have to trust them. His charity work is beyond compare, and his deal where he purchased Israels and Egypts agreements for peace was historic (especially since Sadat and Begin hated each other with a passion) but that wasn't what he was awarded the prize for.....he was given it for being a sharp stick in the President's eye. Members of the committee as much as said so in comments on television during the period of the award.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): Shows how silly the once-esteemed Nobel Prize has become.

  

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10): What a complete crock of crap. Worse than giving it to President Carter

  

Did Gore fly a Citation X and use a Lincoln Town Car to get to Oslo?


 

Quoting Klaus (Reply 16): You can yell as much as you want, but I prefer their company on the issue. You may yet turn out to be right about everything. I just wouldn't bet on it if I were you.

Al Gore may be on the right track about climate change (even if he does treat the truth like silly putty) but the general consensus among Americans is that he's a bombastic douchebag. My old boss used to drive a car for the campaign when Gore was in town until he suddenly realized that the people running the campaign were just more Washingtonians with an eye for the main chance.

I suppose even bombastic douchebags must have their day in the sun. Long life and good health to him, and if he ever gets elected put your dirty movies and rock and roll away because Tipper will have them before you can say "Johnny Rotten and the Sex Pistols" three times.

Let's hope he takes some a that good Nobel cash and does something like buy a windmill or start a compost heap at his crib. He uses more electricity than about ten average homes, when he's not jet setting around or in a motorcade somewhere sucking up god knows how many tons of hydrocarbons.

Yep. Sit his dead ass in a one room apartment, no car, living on social security he won't be squandering any excess CO2. and that is fo sho'..

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17): Certainly some can be debated, but recently they appear to have become a tool for the political left of the world who appear to be in control of the process.

"The political left" in that respect is pretty much everybody except the american republicans. Who are a tiny minority in a global context which has been veering wide off the course of the rest of the planet recently. So yes, almost the entire rest of the planet is "under control of the political left" when looking from the far right fringe.

And that is officially A Good Thing.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17): I'm a personal fan of President Jimmy Carter until he does silly shit like break the protocol about commenting on successors (a protocol from which he benefitted) and endorsed non-democratic players as democratic because of political feelings (i.e. Ortega pre-democracy, Chavez and others) and finally his disastrous nuclear deal with the North Korea where he put us in a position to have to trust them. His charity work is beyond compare, and his deal where he purchased Israels and Egypts agreements for peace was historic (especially since Sadat and Begin hated each other with a passion)

Plenty of reasons to expect that Carter's award will stand up well to future reexamination.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17): but that wasn't what he was awarded the prize for.....he was given it for being a sharp stick in the President's eye.

Bush jr. is about as extremely removed from getting the same prize as you can get as a politician in a democratic country, so it is indeed quite possible that the jury made a statement with Carter. By determining the when as they did, but not the if.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): Shows how silly the once-esteemed Nobel Prize has become.

Indeed....the Nobel committee now ranks down there with the UN and Al Qaeda on my esteem list.

Giving it to people like Jimmy Carter, Gorbachev, Arafat, Kissinger, and now Algore is a slap in the face and adisgrace to the many more and legitimately deserving people that populate this list.

http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

Disgusting. Put out a BS piece of enviro-hysteria that isn't even truth, get everyone all fired up about it, get a Nobel Peace Prize. Wow.

Quoting Toast (Reply 7): When was the Nobel Peace Prize last esteemed? Arafat? Kissinger???

I think the more appropriate response would have been "Le Duc Tho???" He had a great deal more "blood on his hands'" than Kissinger.

Quoting Columba (Reply 13): Interesting that two politicans that are very controversial in their own country have achieved this honor: Jimmy Carter and Al Gore !!

I wouldn't call Carter "very controversial." He is fairly widely respected in the US for his post-presidential efforts, even if he a somewhat rogue Secretary of State.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 10): What a complete crock of crap. Worse than giving it to President Carter specifically for his political stance rather than actual work he's done that merited the prize.

I agree with this. When the Nobel Committee awarded Carter the Prize not for his wide accomplishments for human rights or his groundbreaking efforts in the Middle East (for which he should have received a 1/3 of the award for in 1978), it made it fairly clear that they have a political bone to pick with the US. That's their prerogative, but IMO it reduces its credibility.

At least Gore isn't as big of a fraud as Rigoberta Menchu Tum.

I am glad that Al Gore was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. To me he was awarded for his presenting a view of the critical issue of global warming to a broad audience all over the world but especially in the USA. As a former USA Vice President, he engenders respect and is well known to a huge part of the world. The IPCC was also awarded for it's important work via scientists that largely support the issue is real. While there is controversy over the issue of 'global warming', many including myself do believe that humans have largely contributed to or making much worse the natural cycles of global temperatures.
In the USA, the media here is more interested in if will encourage Al Gore to run for the Democratic Nomination for the President of the USA, perhaps bumping off other front runners like Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen Obama, both with serious problems as compared with Gore. Perhaps revenge for the disaster of the 2000 Presidential election.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 20): And that is officially A Good Thing.

Okay, I'm nominating you for a Nobel next year.  

Just to add to your remark, anyone who doesn't align themselves with the far right have no brains of their own and are being victimized, controlled by a liberal media, liberal education system, fluoride, and whatever else. Naturally, folks who embrace the far right's philosophy are rugged rationalists.

Shame on the Nobels. This is ridiculous.

The Nobel Peace Prize should have been awarded to the Burmese monks and shared with Aung San Suu Kyii.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 22): At least Gore isn't as big of a fraud as Rigoberta Menchu Tum.

What about her?

Quoting Slider (Reply 21): Indeed....the Nobel committee now ranks down there with the UN and Al Qaeda on my esteem list.

I'm sure They'll cry themselves to sleep over your disapproval.   

Quoting Slider (Reply 21): Disgusting. Put out a BS piece of enviro-hysteria that isn't even truth,

Says who? The scientists actually working in the field agree that it's the most probable explanation of the observations they are making. Without the same level of insight, what gives you the apparent certainty that they are wrong after all?

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17): Certainly some can be debated, but recently they appear to have become a tool for the political left of the world who appear to be in control of the process.

well, maybe that's because political standpoints who are regarded as being far left in the US are seen as more or less centristic points of view in the rest of the world?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5): Shows how silly the once-esteemed Nobel Prize has become

  

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6): Al Gore promotes awareness about the finiteness of our resources and the risks of CO2 pollution.

since when is CO2 a pollution?

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 15): This "award" satisfies the elitists, alarmists and willfully uninformed. Among critical thinkers, one can choose to , , or simply offer a .

  

Quoting Klaus (Reply 20): "The political left" in that respect is pretty much everybody except the american republicans. Who are a tiny minority in a global context which has been veering wide off the course of the rest of the planet recently. So yes, almost the entire rest of the planet is "under control of the political left" when looking from the far right fringe

Unfortunately it is the socialist left, anti capitalist gang that has hijacked environmentalism as a way to attack capitalism and democracy. The enviroment is secondary to their Anti Capitalist cause

Quoting Slider (Reply 21): Indeed....the Nobel committee now ranks down there with the UN and Al Qaeda on my esteem list. Giving it to people like Jimmy Carter, Gorbachev, Arafat, Kissinger, and now Algore is a slap in the face and adisgrace to the many more and legitimately deserving people that populate this list.

  

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 22): At least Gore isn't as big of a fraud as Rigoberta Menchu Tum.

The fact that she faked or stretched parts of her autobiography doesn't invalidate her political struggle IMO.

By the same standard, Mother Teresa or the Dalai-Lama are frauds as well.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 25): he Nobel Peace Prize should have been awarded to the Burmese monks and shared with Aung San Suu Kyii.

I agree. But Aung San Suu Kyi already received the prize in 1991. AFAIK you don't get the prize twice, at least it has never happened before.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 22): I think the more appropriate response would have been "Le Duc Tho???" He had a great deal more "blood on his hands'" than Kissinger.

Yes, but at least he declined the prize.

Then they should have awarded the prize to the Burmese monks.

Quoting Toast (Reply 30): Aung San Suu Kyi already received the prize in 1991.

Quoting Mbmbos (Reply 24): Okay, I'm nominating you for a Nobel next year.

Come on - that would be silly! If anything, I've made the world more annoyed in recent years...!   

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 25): The Nobel Peace Prize should have been awarded to the Burmese monks and shared with Aung San Suu Kyii.

That would mean totally short-term-politicizing it right now.

And besides, they are already ahead of you: They awarded the prize to Aung San Suu Ky in 1991 already! "for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights"

They are really a joke, aren't they?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1): As far as I'm aware Al Gore is the first Nobel laureate to also have received an Oscar for the same effort...!

Just goes to show that the Peace prize is becoming the Hollywood prize. Could someone enlighten me as to the last time two or more countries or peoples went to war over global warming and just what fmr VP Al Gore did to mediate the "peace" between them?

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 25):

Do you know what kind of political program
Burmese monks and Aung San Suu Kyii have?
Are you sure that Burma with them will be
a democracy?

Quoting Slider (Reply 21): Indeed....the Nobel committee now ranks down there with the UN and Al Qaeda on my esteem list. Giving it to people like Jimmy Carter, Gorbachev, Arafat, Kissinger, and now Algore is a slap in the face and adisgrace to the many more and legitimately deserving people that populate this list.

Excuse me? Gorbachev? Who else would have earned the price back in 1990 if not him? Remember, it's his merit that the revolution in Eastern Germany, Poland, the CSSR and so in didn't get bloody in 1989....

but probably I shouldn't expect any rational thoughts from someone who puts the UN and Al Qaeda onto the same level....  

http://www.eux.tv/article.aspx?articleId=15975
"Czech president Vaclav Klaus: "surprised" at Nobel prize for Gore"...""The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct," the statement said."....
Klaus said it so it must be true!  

Quoting Klaus (Reply 20): "The political left" in that respect is pretty much everybody except the american republicans. Who are a tiny minority in a global context which has been veering wide off the course of the rest of the planet recently. So yes, almost the entire rest of the planet is "under control of the political left" when looking from the far right fringe. And that is officially A Good Thing.

To call the US the "far right fringe" is a gross lie which ignores the reality of our democracy...our republic which predates every other modern democracy currently running (I will bow to anyone who wishes to say Iceland is older but it was under the Danish kings for a long time) and has allowed for left and right to have equal opportunity and participation...... and it further ignoresdictatorships all around the world and is intended to preach to the choir. It insults the notion that we have held dear (in spite of the academia who desperately wish we'd lose our aggressive individualism since it frightens them and supposedly abandons the weakest). It even further ignores the reality which is that that our "far right" rationale is wrong to you because we don't generally think like you, personally. A good chunk of the world is not left leaning (according to their own standards) and the US right is a very large tent (with the loudest being the most fervent, as in all other parties). If you think that calling me a far right fringist is anything close to accurate then you're generalizing due to either intellectual laziness (not that you aren't smart, but you refuse to consider than anyone else may have a valid point if they disagree with you about anything...which is the stereotype for Europeans, Germans in particular, over here) or worse (and I hope it's not true) a deliberate prevarication told in order to influence peoples thinking prior to reading anything else written by me.

Quoting Mbmbos (Reply 24): Just to add to your remark, anyone who doesn't align themselves with the far right have no brains of their own and are being victimized, controlled by a liberal media, liberal education system, fluoride, and whatever else. Naturally, folks who embrace the far right's philosophy are rugged rationalists.

You say all that like its bad!  

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 25): The Nobel Peace Prize should have been awarded to the Burmese monks and shared with Aung San Suu Kyii.

That would have been a prize I'd have gotten behind. A woman and a group of non-violent activists seeking to change their society by peaceful means, hurting no one but themselves.

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 29): since when is CO2 a pollution?

Since its massive emissions have begun to cause damage on multiple fronts. Climate change is just one of those.

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 29): Unfortunately it is the socialist left, anti capitalist gang that has hijacked environmentalism as a way to attack capitalism and democracy. The enviroment is secondary to their Anti Capitalist cause

The very much capitalist insurers are already feeling the pinch from the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters in their books. And environmentally sound and efficient products are increasingly what drives european exports. Falling behind there would be an economically stupid decision as well as a morally dubious one.

Quote: Al Gore promotes awareness about the finiteness of our resources and the risks of CO2 pollution. Nothing silly about either of the two.

Except that he flies around in a private jet and uses more electricity each month than a small suburb.   

Quoting Toast (Reply 30): Yes, but at least he declined the prize.

It doesn't matter that he declined it, it's that they awarded it to him in the first place. Don't change the premise after you get called out.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 36): "Czech president Vaclav Klaus: "surprised" at Nobel prize for Gore"...""The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct," the statement said.".... Klaus said it so it must be true!

Where is a connection to me in the above quote?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 20): "The political left" in that respect is pretty much everybody except the american republicans.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 36): To call the US the "far right fringe" is a gross lie

You couldn't have made your bizarrely distorted view of the issue clearer than that. For you the USA and the Republicans in their current incarnation are one and the same apparently. Fortunately most people (including most americans) don't share that horrid misconception.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 33): Could someone enlighten me as to the last time two or more countries or peoples went to war over global warming

As far as I am aware there are already fights over land which has become uninhabitable going on in Africa... and if current global warming continues (be it man-made or not) we will have a lot of wars over resources, especially over too much or too less water, in the future...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0419/p02s01-usgn.html

Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 41): As far as I am aware there are already fights over land which has become uninhabitable going on in Africa...

And how many times has fmr VP Al Gore been over there to mediate? BTW, I'm sure he will enjoy the flight over and back in his private jet and that the award will look good in the trophy room of his Nashville manison.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 39): It doesn't matter that he declined it, it's that they awarded it to him in the first place. Don't change the premise after you get called out.

I'm not changing the premise and I didn't get called out. As I said,

Quoting Toast (Reply 7): This particular Nobel prize has always been politically motivated

and awarding the prize to Le Duc Tho was beyond ridiculous.

Quoting Michlis (Reply 38): Except that he flies around in a private jet and uses more electricity each month than a small suburb.

To the extent that (if?) he unnecessarily increases emissions criticism is certainly justified. But the electricity claim is quite a bit overblown and distorted as far as I'm aware.

And since his worldwide efforts may turn out to have a major impact on the international climate policies, even that would probably come out as a massive positive on the bottom line, even if he might be a complete hypocrite in his own private life (which is not the case to that extent as far as I'm aware).

Al Gore:s movie is stopped in UK schools and can not be shown there.

The UK Supreme Court do not find it accurate to be shown for school children.

(I have translated from a Swedish newspaper 

9 wrong things according to High Court in the UK:

1. The world seas will not rise 7 meters in a short time.

2. "Katrina" was not caused by global warming.

3. The Chad lake is not being dry because of global warming.

4. It has nothing to do with global warming that the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro soon is gone.

5. The Gulf Stream will not going to stop.

6. The ice bears will not drown because of lighter ice flakes.

7. Small & low islands in the Pacific will not disappear under water due to rising sea.

8. Not all changes for under water life as plants etc is causes by global warming.

9. Two of the presentations (diagrams) in the movie is over exaggerated.

Ref. Expressen
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/1.87...es-film-stoppas-i-brittiska-skolor

Quoting Klaus (Reply 27): Says who? The scientists actually working in the field agree that it's the most probable explanation of the observations they are making. Without the same level of insight, what gives you the apparent certainty that they are wrong after all?

Yes, they do. And it would be foolish to deny that the weight of scientific opinion is in that direction. Nevertheless, what does leave many uneasy is the almost religious zeal with which someone like yourself advances all the pro-climate change perspectives and dismisses out of hand any contrary view. If you aren't a scientist yourself, what it comes down to is you believing those viewpoints. And you've never struck me as someone who is particularly sceptical, viz. your advancement of all things EU, Mac or climate change, rather someone who has faith, and proselytises accordingly, being completely incapable of understanding that others might hold a contrary view.

Now, as it happens, I would entirely concur that the weight of scientific opinion is in favour of man-made climate change. That doesn't mean that a sceptical point of view is wrong, nor that those who question the official line are wrong to do so. Furthermore, if the perspective espoused by Gore is so clearly the conventional wisdom, why did he feel the need to offer so much "evidence" that consisted of half-truths, exaggerations and even flat out lies. You can hardly blame people for wondering when one of the chief protagonists for the man-made climate change case uses a polemic to advance his cause, rather than the sober, rational science that is undoubtedly out there.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 42): And how many times has fmr VP Al Gore been over there to mediate?

well, on my book there are different ways to promote peace.... one of them, certainly, being mediating - which is what Jimmy Carter got his Nobel price for back in 2002, if memory serves me right...

another way is trying to prevent wars from starting altogether.... which is what, e.g., German chancellor Willy Brandt got his Nobel price for in 1977... and the way I'm seeing it, trying to prevent climate change is just another way of trying to prevent wars.... you are free to think differently, but this is my opinion...

Quoting Klaus (Reply 37): The very much capitalist insurers are already feeling the pinch from the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters in their books.

Did you not read my post on the Global warming thread. About the nice profits in the insurance industry

Lloyd’s Chief Executive Richard Ward added:


“These profits reflect the recent favourable rating environment and a relatively low level of catastrophe claims. We are now seeing a downward pressure on rates and a softening of conditions across all classes. This reinforces the continued need to focus on underwriting for profit.”

http://www.lloyds.com/News_Centre/Pr...ds_reports_interim_results_GBP.htm

Posting the same old lie does not make it become true Klaus

Quoting Klaus (Reply 37): Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 29): since when is CO2 a pollution? Since its massive emissions have begun to cause damage on multiple fronts. Climate change is just one of those.

Please elaborate on those multiple fronts. And can you post a peer reviewed study that makes CO2 a pollution.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 42): Quoting Haggis79 (Reply 41): As far as I am aware there are already fights over land which has become uninhabitable going on in Africa... And how many times has fmr VP Al Gore been over there to mediate? BTW, I'm sure he will enjoy the flight over and back in his private jet and that the award will look good in the trophy room of his Nashville manison.

  

Environmentalist Al Gore now turned Nobel Peace Prize should travel all his long distances by ship and ride bycicles on short distances wherever he goes instead of going by car. He can also give up his mansion and go live without electricity in a log cabin on a mountain.

Seriously, I wonder how many of these environmentalists are ready to give up their cars and SUVs for public transportation, are ready to give up chain restaurants for foods grown without pesticides and other chemicals, will stop flying planes and stop using anything that creates pollution including their cell phones and microwave ovens.

So much hypocrisy...

Quoting Michlis (Reply 38): Except that he flies around in a private jet and uses more electricity each month than a small suburb.