Gore Frontrunner for Nobel Prize

#76
#76
Fayettevol said:
Congratulations Al. All Tennesseans, whether they like him or not, should be proud. First Tennessean to win Nobel Peace Prize since Cordell Hull.
Click to expand...

:eek:lol::eek:lol::eek:lol:

some posts just require a smiley in response.
 
#77
#77
allvol123 said:
We should be proud of a man for winning an award for promoting psuedo-science?
Click to expand...

The people who pick the Nobel Laureates are among the brightest people in the world.

I trust their judgement much more than some nameless person with moronic posts on an internet message board.

Al won it. You conservatives can't deny him that one like you denied him what he rightfully won in 2000. :dance2:
 
#78
#78
Fayettevol said:
The people who pick the Nobel Laureates are among the brightest people in the world.

I trust their judgement much more than some nameless person with moronic posts on an internet message board.

Al won it. You conservaives can't deny him that one like you denied him what he rightfully won in 2000. :dance2:
Click to expand...

The people who pick the Nobel Laureates are :crazy::crazy::crazy:. I mean come on Jimmy Carter, Arafat and now Al Gore? Whos next Nancy Pelosi ? At this point I wouldn't be shocked..:jpshakehead:
 
#79
#79
Fayettevol said:
The people who pick the Nobel Laureates are among the brightest people in the world.

I trust their judgement much more than some nameless person with moronic posts on an internet message board.

Al won it. You conservaives can't deny him that one like you denied him what he rightfully won in 2000. :dance2:
Click to expand...

You're right we can't deny him his 1/2 prize. Much better outcome for him than 0% of the presidency. Maybe he'll add on to his house with the money
 
#80
#80
Fayettevol said:
The people who pick the Nobel Laureates are among the brightest people in the world.

I trust their judgement much more than some nameless person with moronic posts on an internet message board.

Al won it. You conservaives can't deny him that one like you denied him what he rightfully won in 2000. :dance2:
Click to expand...

The same people that picked Jimmy Carter and Arafat?

There are certainly some moronic posters on this board, I will give you that. :whistling:
 
#84
#84
Did anybody hear any of the news accounts of Gore's Nobel Prize? On CBS Harry Smith sounded so gleeful that I was afraid he was going to drop his pants and do something that might get him arrested.
 
#85
#85
GAVol said:
Did anybody hear any of the news accounts of Gore's Nobel Prize? On CBS Harry Smith sounded so gleeful that I was afraid he was going to drop his pants and do something that might get him arrested.
Click to expand...

LOL...:lolabove::lolabove::lolabove:
 
#86
#86
GAVol said:
Did anybody hear any of the news accounts of Gore's Nobel Prize? On CBS Harry Smith sounded so gleeful that I was afraid he was going to drop his pants and do something that might get him arrested.
Click to expand...

If he had done what you suggested, what would he have been arrested for? Impersonating a man?

Ha ha, I crack me up sometimes.
 
#88
#88
utvolpj said:
You're right we can't deny him his 1/2 prize. Much better outcome for him than 0% of the presidency. Maybe he'll add on to his house with the money
Click to expand...

Actually, he's announced he will donate his half of the $1.5 million dollar prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit group that does what its name implies.
 
#92
#92
Well, I was out of town and unable to comment until now. Like I said earlier, I think that it is too early to be awarding peace prizes until you see if their efforts actually change emissions practices an appreciable amount. Anyway, I'm glad that the award went to the IPCC as well as Gore - if had been just Gore, I would have been even more upset. It just feels very political, and I guess this Nobel usually is, but I felt like global warming issues were already political enough...
 
#93
#93
allvol123 said:
We should be proud of a man for winning an award for promoting psuedo-science?
Click to expand...

We've discussed this issue before and I feel like I have presented a reasonable enough argument against why global warming science is not pseudo-science. What is the basis for this claim - one that you seem so intent on making, but never really back up?
 
#96
#96
volinbham said:
Check out Apple's website - it opens with a tribute to Al.

Apple

Surely someone has done more for peace than Al?????
Click to expand...

The Nobel "Peace" Prize has become sort of a misnomer. What I learned in reading a little about it is that the award has evolved to encompass efforts in a number of noble fields, though it has kept it's original name. "Last year, for example, it went to the Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank for pioneering the use of microcredit to spur creation of small businesses in poor nations." (from the article I linked above).

Criticize Al all you want if you think his science is faulty, but this suggestion that he shouldn't have won the prize because his environmental work isn't a peacemaking effort...well, I hope this will put that to rest once and for all. :shakehead:
 
#97
#97
The Nobel committee went to the effort after the announcement to describe how they feel that GW issues are linked to international security, competition for resources, and achieving greater peace.

Also, in general, increasing the general welfare and income of poor nations can go a long way to building internal peace within that nation.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it looks like the Nobel committee is still focusing on Peace when they give out these awards...or else they wouldn't post a justification as to why this is considered to be for peace on their website.

My problem is that until the US, China, and India are on board with an emissions reductions scheme - then Al Gore and the IPCC haven't achieved a measure of future peace, in my opinion. It is too early for this award and seems like nothing more than a political move which annoys me.

For the record, I agree that if increases GHGs will lead to GW, then reducing the effect through reducing GHG concentrations is a peacemaking effort - particularly in areas like Africa, where competition for resources is already fierce.

The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 - Press Release

The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 - Prize Announcement
 
#98
#98
TennTradition said:
The Nobel committee went to the effort after the announcement to describe how they feel that GW issues are linked to international security, competition for resources, and achieving greater peace.

Also, in general, increasing the general welfare and income of poor nations can go a long way to building internal peace within that nation.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it looks like the Nobel committee is still focusing on Peace when they give out these awards...or else they wouldn't post a justification as to why this is considered to be for peace on their website.

My problem is that until the US, China, and India are on board with an emissions reductions scheme - then Al Gore and the IPCC haven't achieved a measure of future peace, in my opinion. It is too early for this award and seems like nothing more than a political move which annoys me.

For the record, I agree that if increases GHGs will lead to GW, then reducing the effect through reducing GHG concentrations is a peacemaking effort - particularly in areas like Africa, where competition for resources is already fierce.

The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 - Press Release

The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 - Prize Announcement
Click to expand...

I don't like that the committee went to such lengths to defend its choice..I will admit that such an effort to "justify" giving it to Gore gives the whole event a hint of impropriety. But even if the awarding was politically motivated to some degree, I am totally unconvinced that Gore was not deserving. I also believe many out there who oppose his recieving the award, are more in tune with their dislike of Gore than the legitimacy (or lack of) of Global Warming science.

Been back to Crossville lately, TT?
 
#99
#99
All Vol! said:
I don't like that the committee went to such lengths to defend its choice..I will admit that such an effort to "justify" giving it to Gore gives the whole event a hint of impropriety. But even if the awarding was politically motivated to some degree, I am totally unconvinced that Gore was not deserving. I also believe many out there who oppose his recieving the award, are more in tune with their dislike of Gore than the legitimacy (or lack of) of Global Warming science.

Been back to Crossville lately, TT?
Click to expand...

I will amend your comments slightly. Those that disagree with this award are those that 1) never liked Gore, 2) don't believe the GW concerns are real, or 3) both - or those who don't believe in GW because Gore is the "spokeperson." Then, you have a few people who like me hate to see the issue further politicized. I should get over that, though, because deciding how to limit carbon decisions will be a very large policy question - which must become political. Oh well...

As for Crossville, I haven't been back since last Christmas. I don't know when I will be back next, unfortunately....maybe next May/June for my niece's graduation (although that seems way too long).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top