Members Captain Fathead Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 ...just one a Nobel peace prize http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lau_announce2007.html THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR 2007 The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change. Indications of changes in the earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 Just goes to show, just like an olympic medal, it doesn't mean squat anymore. When self-proclaimed celebrities start winning these awards as opposed to people who actually accomplish something besides a one-sided, faulty, and misleading and disingenuous "movie", it's pretty much worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bassman1956 Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 I just hope it's widely acknowledged he got the award for being a spokesperson, not for being a scientist. I like the idea he's speaking up. But as so many of us on here feel, I believe the science and evidence is miserably flawed and woefully insufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 I just hope it's widely acknowledged he got the award for being a spokesperson, not for being a scientist. I like the idea he's speaking up. But as so many of us on here feel, I believe the science and evidence is miserably flawed and woefully insufficient. I heard a clip of it on the radio today, his address, talking about the "majority of all worldwide scientists and the consensus of the scientific community say that humans are the cause of global warming and we should stop it", or something to that effect. Pretty silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 Idiotically early. They turned the award into a political statment. They could have waited to see if it was justified, but chose to do otherwise. Dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members johnny6644 Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 Congratulations!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Captain Fathead Posted October 12, 2007 Author Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 Just goes to show, just like an olympic medal, it doesn't mean squat anymore. When self-proclaimed celebrities start winning these awards as opposed to people who actually accomplish something besides a one-sided, faulty, and misleading and disingenuous "movie", it's pretty much worthless. I figure the Peace Prize committee is more qualified than me to determine what deserves the award. I always here people call the film misleading, but hey. It raised awareness. There was a screening of it before I graduated from college, and most of the environmental science professors were in agreement with most of the points in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PaulyWally Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 Kinda like when a musician gets an "honorary" music degree from some University just because he/she is popular. Or how about the way England knights their celebrities. I dunno... I guess times have changed and we need to suck it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chris-dax Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 So I guess now we can say that Al Gore is to scientific inquiry as Yasser Arafat is to Middle East peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 I figure the Peace Prize committee is more qualified than me to determine what deserves the award. I always here people call the film misleading, but hey. It raised awareness. There was a screening of it before I graduated from college, and most of the environmental science professors were in agreement with most of the points in it. It didn't raise awareness to me, b/c it's not real. There's no such thing as a scientific consensus of anything, because it can't be proven. Only that the earth heats and cools in cycles. I wonder if the top limelight hog, whoever that might have been in the 70's, got the NPP for his/her "global cooling" research? This was 100% a political stunt, and it's pretty obvious to see that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 Just goes to show, just like an olympic medal, it doesn't mean squat anymore. I agree with you about the Nobel Peace Prize ...but the other Nobel prizes are worthy of praise as they actually did something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 Just to show how much credibility this award now has.....he beat Rush Limbaugh for the award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 I agree with you about the Nobel Peace Prize ...but the other Nobel prizes are worthy of praise as they actually did something. Isn't that the one he won? I thought it was, but yeah? I don't know how you can win a "Peace" of anything, when it has nothing to do with "peace"? Selling off your half-founded theories as gospel to make a grab for the green is hardly anything like that. Stopping killing in Africa or the Middle East definitely, but this just makes it a farce and anyone with their own quack theory gets intl. recognition? Sure thing guys... Way to keep the "integrity" factor going... EDIT: No one posted it yet, so here it is for 'ol times sake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Captain Fathead Posted October 12, 2007 Author Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 It didn't raise awareness to me, b/c it's not real. There's no such thing as a scientific consensus of anything, because it can't be proven. Only that the earth heats and cools in cycles. I wonder if the top limelight hog, whoever that might have been in the 70's, got the NPP for his/her "global cooling" research? This was 100% a political stunt, and it's pretty obvious to see that... See, the movie caused controversy. You may not agree with what he says. I'm not going to argue the merits of it, because I'm no scientist. However, it did make people go out and investigate the issue on their own. I have friends on both sides of the issue. Most of them saw "Inconveniant Truth" and then did further reading. Some agree with you. Others believe Gore hit the nail on the head. But they wouldn't be examining the issue if Gore hadn't made a movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members walkerci Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 Now he will run for President again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Captain Fathead Posted October 12, 2007 Author Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 Now he will run for President again. Nope, but I wonder if someone will offer him the Vice president spot on their ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hi.flyer Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 Some guy I've never met and never will meet places flags in wrong order = major issue possible catastrophic climate change = no biggie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 See, the movie caused controversy. You may not agree with what he says. I'm not going to argue the merits of it, because I'm no scientist. However, it did make people go out and investigate the issue on their own. I have friends on both sides of the issue. Most of them saw "Inconveniant Truth" and then did further reading. Some agree with you. Others believe Gore hit the nail on the head. But they wouldn't be examining the issue if Gore hadn't made a movie. If you think lying and falsifying info and espousing your theories, as a non-scientist as "fact" and "Truth" (which is in the name), just to gain notoriety and make controversy is an upstanding and integral act, I'm sorry my friend. It's a Michael Moore flick on steroids- just has the name of a has-been behind it, is why anyone "cared". Anyone see Leo DiCrapio's flick? I heard it dropped like a bomb! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members picker13 Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 OK. I considered giving the Nobel Peace Prize for humanitarian reasons acceptable, but now I've just lost ALL respect in what was perhaps the most prestigious honor one could receive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Captain Fathead Posted October 12, 2007 Author Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 If you think lying and falsifying info and espousing your theories, as a non-scientist as "fact" and "Truth" (which is in the name), just to gain notoriety and make controversy is an upstanding and integral act, I'm sorry my friend. Most environmental scientists agree with Gore's stuff. He never claimed to do the research... He's always admitted scientists are behind his facts. I wouldn't necessarily compare Inconveniant Truth to any of Moore's stuff. Moore goes out of his way to make everyone look bad, Truth is just laying out scientific opinions (I'm not going to say facts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members James Hart Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 didn't he win one for inventing the interwebz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 Most environmental scientists agree with Gore's stuff. He never claimed to do the research... He's always admitted scientists are behind his facts. I wouldn't necessarily compare Inconveniant Truth to any of Moore's stuff. Moore goes out of his way to make everyone look bad, Truth is just laying out scientific opinions (I'm not going to say facts). Again, you say "most", when there's no such evidence or hard data to back that up. 77.34% of people know that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 He raised awareness on the environment. How is that possibly a bad thing? Plus, GWB was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Would that make it mean something? Its a shame that the environment has become a political issue when it's anything but. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted October 12, 2007 Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 See, the movie caused controversy. You may not agree with what he says. I'm not going to argue the merits of it, because I'm no scientist. However, it did make people go out and investigate the issue on their own. I have friends on both sides of the issue. Most of them saw "Inconveniant Truth" and then did further reading. Some agree with you. Others believe Gore hit the nail on the head. But they wouldn't be examining the issue if Gore hadn't made a movie. You're right. No one even thought about Global Warming until Al made his movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Captain Fathead Posted October 12, 2007 Author Members Share Posted October 12, 2007 You're right. No one even thought about Global Warming until Al made his movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.