Al Gore will share this year’s Nobel Peace Prize with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for their efforts to increase awareness of the challenges of global climate change.
Congratulations to them and all that, but doesn’t this seem like yet another example where the Peace prize is given to someone whose record when it comes to peacefulness is somewhat mixed? Don’t forget here folks, Al Gore is the guy who invented the Internet. Have you ever looked at the Internet? There’s no peace there at all.
Now if only he could bring peace to his own office.
That is my kinda office.
The guy was in goverment for 10 years he could have done more for peace and enviroment then, he did not do it. If I remember correctly several massacres occured during this time and the US did not raise a finger.
This prize is a joke
He comes not bringing peace, but a sword… 🙂
Why would someone that appears to support Gore still pass along the old lie about the “invent the internet” thing?
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/
You’re just helping spread tired old anti-Gore propaganda.
Or I’m just making a joke. Both are possibilities to be considered!
Al Gore claiming to invent the Internet is a sort of urban semi-legend (why don’t “legends” come from the suburbs or country anymore?) He really said, rather accurately, that he was on the Congressional Committee/s that worked to get the Internet (already in existence as ARPANET) out to general public use, laid foundations for national data nets, etc. He was indeed instrumental as a political force (not engineering “inventor” but it’s not a bad metaphor in context) in turning ARPANET into the widespread, public Internet that we all know and “love.”
If you want detial, see Link.
While I esentially agree with most of you, I think is also fair that Al Gore has attracted more attention to the global warming issue than anyone else.
As far as I understand the Nobel is a recognition for a single important contribution (although this is hard to achieve in a field like peace), so while Al Gore might have all sort of strings attached in many issues, as far as ambientalism goes he has indeed done a significant job.
And now I’m feeling monitor envy.
He’s neater than I am!
As for inventing the internet, Sean, maybe you are making a joke, but it would help if you provided a link in that line to make clear it’s BS or otherwise set it up a bit differently. That smear is still common to read in MSM pieces, and there are still liberal bloggers who actually believe it as well, sadly. Perhaps regular readers can detect what’s snark and what’s not in your pieces (and I’m inclined to think it’s snark), but as a new reader I’m left unclear because you haven’t given me enough context. For what it’s worth.
Come on! It’s clear Sean’s making a joke.
But I’d like to take a moment and call out Abelion; it is ridiculous to blame all the actions of a -democratic- government on one man, no matter what that government did. More to the point, what power did Gore really have to stop those massacres, or even get the United States to do much about them? Are you familiar with what power the VP actually gets to wield? It’s not as much as you’d like to think – certainly not as much as the ideal benevolent dictator you seem to think ought to have gotten the prize.
It looks like the office of someone who actually thinks and works for peace…
I’d be more afraid of the person with an office with just a pen for signing things.
Don’t say that he didn’t try to use his office for change…. Environmental concerns were always high on his priority list. Unfortunately, the office of VP is roughly the most irrelevant post in government. As for the various massacres during the Clinton administration, the gov’t was pretty interventionalist but was constantly fighting Congress over this. That administration definitely tried harder than others in recent history.
“Are you familiar with what power the VP actually gets to wield? It’s not as much as you’d like to think – certainly not as much as the ideal benevolent dictator you seem to think ought to have gotten the prize.”
So we’re going to stop blaming Cheney now?
*runs away REALLY fast*
Then again, a clean desk is the first sign of a misguided career 🙂
Four widescreen monitors in view. I think somebody is envious.
The only reason to keep a clean desk would be if it used to belong to someone important. *cough*
The reason for giving Gore the Peace Prize was bringing to light the possible ensuing “environmental refugee” problem that would be brought about by massive short term shifts in climate patterns. See transcripts of the announcement for details. Read before overreacting with limited knowledge of an event that should not be garnering this level of media attention and outrage. Cheers.
Yvette: The VP is not granted much in official power, but Cheney pushes things and has influence because that’s how the Bush Administration set things up. It certainly isn’t the way things are supposed to be. Don’t confuse an explanation in case A based on normal standards with the idea that outliers could not exist as example case B.
I’ve never got over Tipper Gore trying to censor rock lyrics.
My understanding is that Al Gore got the Nobel peace prize for prodding humanity to avoid the distopian “Waterworld” future by taking action on climate change now. So both arguments are correct: Gore deserved the prize and Gore should have done more to prevent “Waterworld” while he was Vice-President.
On the other hand, it might be worth giving a Nobel peace prize to President Bush for his efforts in preventing the “eugenics wars” via present-day restrictions on stem-cell research.
Tom Lehrer once remarked that political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Whatever he may or may not have done while VP, Gore cannot help but be a better choice.
Gore: the Arafat of Global Warming.
Surely they could have found someone better than him to give the prize too. Are they running out of candidates or something? ;x
First of all, I don’t see the relevance of climate change to ‘peace’ beyond some semi muddled notion. Anyone want to explain why theres a causal between global warming and the state of peace vs war?
Second of all, its not clear to me whether the science is perfectly ironed out yet. IF we were handing out physics nobel prizes, we usually wait for more evidence before pronouncing a winner (note: 5 sigma certainty for a discovery in particle physics vs less than 1 sigma certainty in climate physics)
Thirdly, as others said he did nothing while he was in political power, and instead made a polemic movie thats widely recognized as having factual errors (even though the majority of climate scientists agree with the premise).
I just find this whole thing extremely silly.
“[…] 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.”
Now tell me how making the people of the world coooperation or doom are the future scenarios to choose from is not going to increase cooperation between nations?
After al gore and his powerpoint presentation even Bush is forced to talk about climate change! Even talking to other countries about how to stop it!
Even in my local morning newspapers there are now global climate change themed articles at least once a week, a huge change compared to the one or two articles about the IPCC reports in the science section once a year or so that happened before.
Regardless, there’s certainly a few interesting Thermodynamics lessons on his desk.