Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Al Gore Shares Nobel Peace Prize with UN Panel

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the who-woulda-thunk dept.

United States 937

eldavojohn writes "Former US Vice President Al Gore has been announced as a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on environmental awareness & climate change. He shares his award with the the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 'Speaking in Washington, Mr Gore praised the IPCC, "whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years". "We face a true planetary emergency," Mr Gore warned. "It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity." He said he would donate his half of the $1.5m prize money to the Alliance for Climate Protection, reported the news agency Reuters.'"

cancel ×

937 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So the IPCC... (0, Troll)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951881)

So the IPCC helped Al Gore invent the intarweb?

Don't forget MANBEARPIG! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20951945)

That had to help sway the committee, too.

Re:Don't forget MANBEARPIG! (2, Funny)

Homr Zodyssey (905161) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952363)

You can't be serial.

Re:So the IPCC... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20951967)

As ignorant, self-serving and ossified as our Congress tends to be, if Gore hadn't argued and lobbied as hard as he did for those crazy DARPA people there probably wouldn't have been an internet. At least, not one that America "controls". I get your joke but it's sooo old. Maybe you should start getting the paper delivered to your parent's basement.

Re:So the IPCC... (0)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952253)

I have lots of funnier jokes, but, honestly, the first thing that pops into my head when I hear Al Gore is still 'and we took the initiative in inventing the Internet.' But, seriously, Al Gore and the IPPC have done great things to raise global awareness and create real action in working to solve the global warming crisis.

What day is it? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20951883)

Today is April 1st, right?

No confidence (-1, Troll)

meburke (736645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951885)

Well, there goes any confidence I've had in the competency and integrity of the Nobel committee.

Re:No confidence (4, Insightful)

unixcrab (1080985) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951921)

You mean you had any confidence after they gave one to Arafat?

Re:No confidence (2, Insightful)

cliffski (65094) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951927)

So instead of just hurling that out there, maybe you would like to explain why they do not deserve it? feel free to show us how the scientists on the IPCC are all wrong, and you have better information, and more experience on these issues.
What exactly is wrong with this decision? apart from the fact that you may not like al gore?

Re:No confidence (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952099)

Look here for a brief summary:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/11/gore_errors/ [theregister.co.uk]
But nevermind.. this whole topic has gone into religion-mode - no further objective discussion possible.

Re:No confidence (-1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952121)

because Al Gore is just an asshole lining his own pockets, under the guise "it's for our own good"

it's a very very wrong decision.

Al Gore owned a small ZINC mine until 2003 which polluted the shit out of the local river. He also owns a massive mansion that uses a shit load of power. If he really believed his own bullshit he would be off living in a mud hut (since that's the life style he is attempting to brow beat the rest of us into)

Re:No confidence (-1, Troll)

PhoenixK7 (244984) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952275)

It's definitely worth calling him out on the mansion, but the zinc mine thing had a retraction on it. Check out the following usa today article [usatoday.com] (near the top).

Also, he's donating the money, and your comment is written as flaimbait. You do not deserve a positive "insightful" rating.

Re:No confidence (4, Informative)

cliffski (65094) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952369)

so you think that everyone who believes that there is man made climate change also believes we all need to live in mud huts?
methinks you have been watching too much fox news. Its perfectly possible to live a modern lifestyle and not destroy the environment. It means you might not have air conditioning, but actually open a window, might not wear a t shirt in winter with the heat blasting full on, and means you might need to get used to the sight of the odd wind turbine and solar panel, but your assumption that green == mud huts is just farcical, and certainly not 'insightful'.

I love the way that, especially in the US, if people suggest even marginal regulatory improvements to the minimum fuel standards of vehicles (as happens every year in the US, and is hugely lobbied against), they get called "eco nazis who want to live in mud huts". Here in Europe, we have much more fuel efficient cars, yet amazingly do not live in mud huts.

Re:No confidence (2, Interesting)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952225)

No the OP, but here are my thoughts:

-He's being awarded for raising environmental awareness. Now, if opinion polls reveal that people believe extremely exaggerated versions what the IPCC said, did that mean he really raised "awareness" by spreading falsities? Would they revoke the prize?

-If the claims in his movie turn out to be wrong, or the solutions to have caused worse problems, or other problems to get much more severe, or the need to reduce global CO2 leads to a war with China and India, would the prize be revoked?

-What event would prove the IPCC wrong? If the earth gradually got colder over the next 40 years, would that justify carbon subsidies? It's not very scientific to say, "Whether the earth gets warmer or colder, it's absolutely vital that you reduce use of high-yield energy sources ... to stop global warming ... or global climate change ... or whatever."

-Typically, prizes aren't awarded until enough time has passed to show the long-term effect of what someone did. That hasn't happened.

Flame away.

Re:No confidence (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951933)

Why? The work that Al Gore has done to raise awareness of our current planetary climate crisis is second to none. The Peace Prize goes out to individuals who raise global awareness of issues that affect the peace of the entire world, right? Wouldn't you say that climate change is in that category?

Re:No confidence (2, Insightful)

acvh (120205) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952059)

"The Peace Prize goes out to individuals who raise global awareness of issues that affect the peace of the entire world, right? Wouldn't you say that climate change is in that category?"

No. What is affecting the peace of the entire world at the moment is war. There are wars between nations, wars of nations against their citizens and wars between ideologies.

This is just silly. Pure PR and marketing. Even the group Gore is giving his share to is a PR firm. They're mission is to do nothing more than tell people about climate change. No research, no solutions, just PR.

Re:No confidence (5, Insightful)

daeg (828071) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952115)

Climate change, even that not created by man, has the potential to cause more strife than oil ever could. It would be hard, but people can live without oil. People can't live without water or food. Small changes in climate can cause dramatic and rapid changes in local climates.

Re:No confidence (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952199)

there's always been change in climate and we have dealt with it, changes which have been far more then small.

it's just alarmist nonsense your pushing there.

Re:No confidence (4, Insightful)

timster (32400) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952177)

The prize in medicine is also not restricted to those who actually cure disease -- it can also be awarded to those who find ways to prevent disease.

The logic here is that the destruction of resources caused by climate change would lead to global conflict, so preventing climate change would prevent war. And world leaders will never make the commitments necessary to resolve the problem unless the electorate is informed.

There might be reasons to disagree with this logic, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.

Re:No confidence (1)

itistoday (602304) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952367)

"No research", "No solutions"?!?

Who the hell modded you up?

Absolutely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20951959)

Al Gore know what is best for humanity and ALL MANKIND!!
 
I'm super...duper...cereal.

Its more of a popularity contest now. (2, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951981)

There are many people more deserving of the award who actually work towards peace, most at the risk of their lives. However I seriously doubt the Nobel committee would dare cross China or even some Islamic factions to award these types of people.

Couldn't this have been rewarded in a science category or were they afraid that that category would get mocked for what the award is about?

Re:No confidence (0, Troll)

WileyC (188236) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952069)

Wow, I'm glad I had my sarcasm filters on!

Look, let's all just admit two things right up front. The Nobel Committee awards feel good prizes for people who a) want to hurt America/capitalism or b) hate George W. Bush. They admitted as much when they gave the prize to Jimmy Carter.

What has Al done again? Oh, that's right, produced a movie that has so many flaws that it's very difficult to point at a single piece of it that is not FACTUALLY wrong in some fundamental respect. I think he pronounced his name properly at one point . . .

Re:No confidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952137)

i agree 100%. it is a joke. al gore is a relatively intelligent man but he is not the authority on atmospheric science and nobody knows what is driving the weather patterns we see around us. i am traveling and can't find my login information so this will be anonymous.

Congratulations (2, Insightful)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951889)

Congratulations to the recipients. They've earned it. As with all peace issues, there is much much more work to do.

idiots with mod points ? (-1, Troll)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951937)

I want the geek card of whomever guy/gal modded parent troll revoked.

if you are not able to discern positive stuff from troll, you shouldnt be usin mod points.

Re:idiots with mod points ? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952025)

Somebody call the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE because unity100 is upset about the distribution of mod points!

Re:idiots with mod points ? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952041)

What's a geek card?

Re:idiots with mod points ? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952079)

I can almost guarantee it was the same moderator who rated 2 other trolls and 2 other flamebaits in this discussion. Probably a newbie with an order of 1e7 UID (and probably low 1e1 age) who just got mod points for the first time.

Re:idiots with mod points ? (0, Offtopic)

Ranten_N_Raven (220310) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952261)

First: I am one of those "wingnuts."

That said, I agree with you on this. That was no Troll. Someone's Karma should be "adjusted."

Gore is a fraud, Nobel commitee ignorant (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952051)

Gore joins recipients Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, and Mohammed El Baradei as the worst Nobel recipients of all time.

Re:Congratulations (2, Insightful)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952141)

I think Al Gore did well. He was screwed on the election, and thus avoided being the president overseeing one of the worst periods in US history, and instead has been recognized in his efforts to raise awareness on an issue which goes far beyond the presidency. After all, what does the presidency matter if the world is fucked over by global warming?

His stance goes in stark contrast to Bush's idea that carbon emission reductions should be pretty much be defined by the economic desire of the US, rather than long term requirements.

Re:Congratulations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952247)

He was screwed on the election, and thus avoided being the president overseeing one of the worst periods in US history...

You say that as if the President and his actions have nothing to do with the course of history...

Re:Congratulations (1, Troll)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952321)

He was screwed on the election

Yeah, Bill Clinton really fucked him over by wasting the incumbent advantage. If Gore hadn't been roped into defending that perjurer, he would have won with a very comfortable margin.

-jcr

Re:Congratulations (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952323)

From an economic perspective carbon emissions reduction is a difficult thing to push on the public. If you do something like a carbon tax, then the majority of the tax burden will fall on the consumer (since the energy demand is very inelastic while energy supply is more elastic). An average consumer will not be amused when gas prices go up to $5/gal and yet Exxon still makes almost the same profits. The only way to solve this is to make energy demand more elastic (which is unlikely) or to make energy supply more inelastic. This is where carbon credits come in. But carbon credits will only force energy supply to be inelastic if you force shortages. This would also be very unpopular with the public. Otherwise, it is just another tax where the majority of the tax burden will again fall on the consumer.

So while Al Gore may have convinced the world that global warming is real, he now has to convince us that consumers, not producers have to pay for any measures against it unless we want shortages. That message will be about 100 times harder to sell.

Congratulations Al! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20951891)

Al Gore certainly deserves this award, but I think I speak for all geeks when I say that I wish he would be a little more accurate. I have a hard time recommending his film An Inconvenient Truth due to his factual errors and exaggerated claims. Nonetheless, he has performed an invaluable service in bringing climate change to the center stage.

Re:Congratulations Al! (0)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951955)

Because of that errors I was recommending it. We understand mistakes he made, but most of the people have no clue. And the message is even more powerful, because of those inaccuracies. If you want to keep people interested - shock them!

Anyway, he deserved it. Film is one, but his travelling around the world and all those presentations is another thing.

That'll be a kick in the nuts... (-1, Troll)

TheHawke (237817) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951897)

to king george II and his minions. Al found his niche as a Green and done good. Now let's see if the rest of the world will stand up and take notice.

Oh and first post?

Re:That'll be a kick in the nuts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952065)

funny, hes also the also the chairman of the board of the Alliance for Climate Protection. Man, he's so giving

Re:That'll be a kick in the nuts... (1, Informative)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952077)

to king george II and his minions.


Include Faux News in the minion category. I wanted to see if they would report Gore had won the Prize but at least for the hour I kept checking, they never did. Can't have some left-wing, tree-hugging liberal get recognition for their efforts, now can we?

Re:That'll be a kick in the nuts... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952175)

Not being an American I am curious about one thing: what will the US public think about this award? Will it make them more likely to vote for Gore as their next president?

I know that he hasn't announced that he is running, but I assume there is a strategy behind this. But I know that US people have a ....different attitude about things which happen outside their country. Will the Nobel prize make Gore seem less like an American to the voting public? Will it push him closer to those freedom hating europeans in their eyes?

Re:That'll be a kick in the nuts... (1)

phpWebber (693379) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952325)

After Bush writes his memoirs, the guaranteed Nobel prize for literature will again humble Gore.

Global Warming (1, Funny)

Kagura (843695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951901)

It's half man, half bear, and have pig! I'm being super, duper serial about this.

Re:Global Warming (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20951961)

Guys, I'm totally serial!

Re:Global Warming (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20951999)

Al Gore is the Devil!

Re:Global Warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952345)

gay secks

Hmmmmmm (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20951905)

He really must have killed manbearpig.....I'm serial....

All part of the plan (2, Insightful)

sayfawa (1099071) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951915)

1. Deny you're running for president. Nobel prize committee wouldn't want to be seen as endorsing a particular front runner.

2. Win Nobel Prize

3. Announce candidacy for US presidency.

4. Profit.

Re:All part of the plan (2, Funny)

staticsage (889437) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952033)

5. Save the world from the man bear pig.

How nice... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952291)

"Mr Gore praised the IPCC, 'whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years'."

Coincidentally, they also helped to make an already obscenely wealthy man even more obscenely wealthy. Let's be clear about one thing - Al Gore is a business man first, and an activist second. His primary goal is to promote a product - namely his movie and book. When I see him flying next to me in coach and living in a 2000 sq ft house, I may pay attention to what he has to say. But until that time, that smarmy bastard can suck my fucking cock.

Re:How nice... (-1, Flamebait)

itistoday (602304) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952343)

Let's be clear about one thing - you're an anonymous coward, but primarily a coward, and until I see you doing something other than being a total dick, you can suck my fucking cock.

Right man for Right reasons (0, Troll)

barwasp (1116567) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951923)

You'll be a good president
One more word: Congratulations

Undeserved! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20951931)

He cheated [theonion.com] .

Looks like the trolls are out early (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20951953)

Maybe if you keep attacking Al Gore global warming will go away!

Should've gone to Bush, actually... (1, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951957)

If there's one person who made the entire world aware of the dangers posed to the environment; with his stubborn attitude - it's got to be Mr. Bush himself. By not ratifying the Kyoto protocol, by stonewalling global efforts to reduce emissions etc. ... the list is long of Mr. Bush's singular contributions to environmental awareness.

Gosh, that's stange (3, Informative)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952075)

1) Congress is responsible for ratifying treaties. President Clinton didn't even bother submitting Kyoto knowing it was dead on arrival.

2) The US has actually done much better in reducing green house gas emissions compared to most Kyoto signatories. Name me one country that will actually meet its obligations.

3) Russia only signed onto Kyoto because their CO2 levels were set before the huge decline in industrial output there so they had credits to spare that there were hoping to make a buck on selling.

And on a more personal note:
4) President Bush's home in Texas is actually a surprising green residence while Gore's pool house consumes more power than the average person's home.

Re:Gosh, that's stange (5, Informative)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952383)

The US has actually done much better in reducing green house gas emissions compared to most Kyoto signatories.
Untrue, especially compared to European signatories like Germany, France, UK etc. (developed economies to which the US can be compared.)

Name me one country that will actually meet its obligations.
According to one of the most well-sourced articles in Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , Germany and the UK are on the way to fulfil the criteria, having reduced their emissions by 14-17% although they were only half as high per capita as the US to start with. Meanwhile the US has increased its emissions by 16% from 1990 to 2004.

Re:Should've gone to Bush, actually... (2, Insightful)

isa-kuruption (317695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952131)

Man, you are ignorant...

First, the Kyoto Protocol, and any treaty, needs to be ratified by Congress, not the President (read up on the Constitution). The President, however, needs to sort of say, "yeah this is something we'll look at". So, why haven't we looked at Kyoto?

Well, quoting Wikipedia...

The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.


Not to mention, Bush has made his statement about Kyoto with a valid criticism...

This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto ... America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change ... Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."[69]


Of course, since that quote was made, China became the #1 CO2 emitter.

Meanwhile, is it better to sign a treaty you can not support or not sign one you know you can't? Nations like Germany can't seem to follow the Kyoto requirements. So, they are failing in their part of the Treaty.

At the same time, Bush has pushed for more funding of alternative fuel automobiles and nuclear power plants. [nytimes.com]

So stop being a partisen fucktard who only reads sound bites off of MoveOn.org and Media Matters and repeats them until you turn blue. Get a clue.

Re:Should've gone to Bush, actually... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952359)

Umm... Bush has nothing to do with "ratifying" treaties, nor does any other President. The Senate does that.

Clinton signed the treaty, even though a Senate advisory vote went 95-0 against it [senate.gov] . Clinton KNEW the treaty would never be ratified, but signed it as a cold-blooded political maneuver. All Bush did was decide to stop wasting time on it.

Sorry if that wrecks your fantasy, but it's true.

The Constitution [emory.edu] : It's not just a good idea. It's the law.

Wow (1)

_Hellfire_ (170113) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951971)

I thought GW Bush would be a shoe-in

An inconvenient BIAS (1)

MrHyd3 (19709) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951985)

Jeez, funny no one ever mentioned Rush Limbaugh was up for the award also? He didn't profit from the running either unlike ALGore aka Egore..... Good Ole, Al, and the lemmings will follow..

Re:An inconvenient BIAS (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952163)

Are you seriously suggesting that Rush Limbaugh should have won this award?!

You know, all this stems from the fact that some organizations that have their nominations accepted decide to publish press releases about it. There's a reason why the Nobel Committee keeps all nominees secret for 50 years and it's to avoid both the pre-promotion and pressure to give the award to the wrong people.

And, I'm about as shocked that it was awarded to Gore as I would be if they awarded it to Limbaugh. Neither have really had any impact on "peace".

Re:An inconvenient BIAS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952265)

<i>Are you seriously suggesting that Rush Limbaugh should have won this award?!</i>

You bastard. You owe me a Starbucks Grande Americano, a Thinkpad T60, and a clean pair of pants.

Here's what this has to do with peace (4, Insightful)

sayfawa (1099071) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951991)

People that don't read (and digest) TFA will wonder what climate change has to do with peace.

The committee said it wanted to bring the "increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states" posed by climate change into sharper focus.

If climate change happens as some expect there will be mass migrations, and territorial and resource wars. Like now, but only more so.

Re:Here's what this has to do with peace (1, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952249)

err, so they are handing out the award for something that MIGHT happen in the future? i thought you had to ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING to win the fucking thing?

Re:Here's what this has to do with peace (4, Insightful)

PrinceAshitaka (562972) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952381)

Why stop a war when you can prevent a war. Doesn't that save more lives in the end.

Re:Here's what this has to do with peace (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952397)

Humans generally have a fascinating organ called the brain, that can actually be used to predict bad situations and take steps to prevent them.

Personally I rather herald someone who prevented a problem than someone who made an already existing one less than an issue.

Should he have to give it back (-1, Flamebait)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#20951995)

for fucking up the 2000 campaign so badly that George W. Bush actually had a chance at winning?(Note, I didn't say he won) That election should have been Gore's for the taking, but instead of campaigning on what he did and what he stood for he just seemed to live in constant fear of the rightwing media and foolishly listened to their advice and kowtowed to their demands.....and now look what we have, maybe the worst president in US history......peace maker indeed.

Gore: "Climate change requires YOU to adapt" (2, Insightful)

Percent Man (756972) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952011)

Ought not a Nobel Peace Prize winner practice [snopes.com] what he preaches?

Re:Gore: "Climate change requires YOU to adapt" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952057)

It's not so bad, especially when you own a company you can buy carbon offsets from to supplement your lifestyle. The rich are certainly getting richer...

Re:Gore: "Climate change requires YOU to adapt" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952097)

Nah, it only applies to your average Joe/Joanne in the street. The 'Useless eaters' have to change, not the ruling classes.

Re:Gore: "Climate change requires YOU to adapt" (5, Informative)

Peyna (14792) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952165)

It's too bad the snopes article wasn't update when Al Gore spent a ton of money making his house greener and more energy efficient, including the addition of solar panels. For what it's worth, at the time the article came out, he was already participating in his power company's "green energy" plan, where you pay a little more for your electricity and the company then is able to get its energy from more planet-friendly sources.

Re:Gore: "Climate change requires YOU to adapt" (0, Troll)

cybermage (112274) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952273)

Right wing naysayers need to get over themselves. Here's a link to rebut yours:

http://neutralsource.org/content/blog/detail/598/ [neutralsource.org]

Falsely charging a celebrity with hypocrisy vis-a-vis global warming is a lame straw-man argument to deflect from the issue. Al Gore, through carbon offsets, leads a carbon-neutral life; and, thorough his work, he has inspired many, many others to reduce or eliminate their carbon footprint.

Re:Gore: "Climate change requires YOU to adapt" (1)

Otter Popinski (1166533) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952355)

Nevermind his house! His most famous invention uses tons of energy [slashdot.org] ! Clearly the man is a monster!

Why he's not running for president (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952013)

I know there are going to be a tonne of "He should run" posts but think about it. It was no secret what Clinton was going to do in 2008. That would of divided the Clinton campaign funds and democrats in general. Gore knows he has one more good run in him. Gather your accolades (Nobel Prize, Oscar, etc) and wait till you're really needed. Hell, he has more sway as a campaigner than a candidate right now.

It's not like he could win the science prize (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952017)

That would've required actual verifiable science...

Of course on Slashdot.. the Nobel Peace Prize *is* a science topic...

A Well-Deserved Honor (2, Insightful)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952023)

It is a rare event in this world that a good person doing a good thing is recognised. Except for the odd right-wingers who will respond to this (as an anonymous coward, no doubt), everyone on this planet owes Mr. Gore a debt of gratitude. Even if you don't believe in the human-influence on global warming (something I accept), you must admit that it's pretty obvious that all the pollution and greenhouse gases that we humans cause to be put into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing. Anything that causes us NOT to soil our nest is to be applauded. Mr. Gore is part of the force of good and I applaud him. Worked on his 2000 campaign in Council Bluffs too. Damn shame that he lost to the current asshat Bush by a vote of 4 to 5.

Re:A Well-Deserved Honor (4, Insightful)

Peyna (14792) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952105)

Damn shame that he lost to the current asshat Bush by a vote of 4 to 5.

Environmentally speaking, the world may be better off with Gore having lost. Not because Bush did anything wonderful, but because of what Gore has been driven to do since then. If he had won the presidency, I'm afraid he never would have made it as far as he did. Back in 2000, many people felt Gore's commitment to environmentalism was merely the usual Democratic Party lip service, and it very well may have been. Today, he's actually working for a change beyond trying to win votes.

Jumped the shark they have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952027)

If Nobel giving one to Yassir Arafat didn't, giving one to Gore now has officially mad ehtem jump the shark.

Re:Jumped the shark they have... (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952139)

If Nobel giving one to Yassir Arafat didn't, giving one to Gore now has officially mad ehtem jump the shark.
What about giving one to Kissinger?

Re:Jumped the shark they have... (2, Insightful)

faloi (738831) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952245)

Or Kofi Annan? He didn't seem too inclined to work for peace during the Rwandan Genocide.

Didn't deserve it (1)

traveller604 (961720) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952029)

IMO

Surprising with recent controversy (2, Insightful)

PadRacerExtreme (1006033) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952055)

A judge [foxnews.com] in the UK calls it political [foxnews.com]
British schools ordered [foxnews.com] to provide balance when showing the movie.
But the Nobel Peace price isn't political....

Re:Surprising with recent controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952147)

When arguing against the left you might want a better source than Fox news, because they'll disregard that out of hand.

The BBC for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Surprising with recent controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952155)

You shouldn't have included links to Fox News. Nobody will follow them, accusing you of blatant right-wing tomfoolery, or something like that. A nice link to the BBC [bbc.co.uk] might be acceptable though. I have a hard time keeping up with which news sources are less likely to get pounced on, though.

Re:Surprising with recent controversy (3, Insightful)

mike2R (721965) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952257)

Right, and I'm a little surprised that didn't make slashdot in it's own right.

It was actually a very good court decision I think, and I say that as someone who is generally convinced by climate change - I dislike the scare mongering type of arguments since they have so many holes in them that sceptics tend to just dismiss them (and be less likely to take a rational argument seriously).

You're having a laugh right? (1, Troll)

johnsie (1158363) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952143)

Awarding that prize to such a high profile PARTISAN poltician has pretty uch destroyed the reputation of the prize. This isn't the first time the decision has been a bad one. Irish biggots won it a few years ago too when they were the main people who caused the problems

Humanity (0, Flamebait)

Cuppa 'Joe' Black (1000483) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952145)

"... a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

Humanity? Shouldn't he be including the right wing too?

Gore's film banned in UK schools (1, Troll)

RenderSeven (938535) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952185)

A little embarrassing that "An Inconvenient Truth" was banned [timesonline.co.uk] in schools in Britain for its inaccuracies. The judge said it met the criteria for political indoctrination.

-5 Wrong post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952365)

It isn't banned.

Oh dear.

Spiritual? (1)

Stele (9443) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952207)

"It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

Moral, sure, but spiritual? I don't see how that has anything to do with it. If there is a god, we have nothing to worry about. I can't help but think he said that particular comment only to make people note that Al is a spiritual person, and therefore, eligible for president.

That said, I think he'd make a better president than all of the people who actually had a chance to win the next election.

Re:Spiritual? (1)

parcel (145162) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952361)

I read it as more of a "school spirit" kind of spiritual. Challenging people to learn about it, with the (I believe correct) idea that people will then truly believe what is happening, and will then rally behind the cause in a far more significant way than "maybe we ought to put up some weather stripping this year".

$500 anyone? (1)

EvenClevererNickName (1172663) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952217)

Are you familiar with my friend Al Gore? Funny if he really did end up on the back of a $500 note..

Seriously good for him - and I do hope he does run for WH 2008..

He was VICE PRESIDENT when the Kyoto treaty... (3, Informative)

centdollarman (1000644) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952243)

...happened! The USA didn't sign it. Yeah, he did pretend he was in favor, but... He should have done more when he was Vice-President!

Re:He was VICE PRESIDENT when the Kyoto treaty... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952329)

Al Gore signed Kyoto. Look it up before posting on slashdot. Wikipedia is a great place to start.

I can't believe it... (1, Insightful)

kannibul (534777) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952267)

The whole global warming issue is cyclic. It even follows the pattern of the sun. His data is flawed, his platform is based on media frenzy and hype.

I can't believe they'd give someone that high of an award based on lies.

And, no, this isn't political - this is a matter of truth vs propoganda. In 10-50 years, when the media is crying about the coming ice age, maybe then...nah - they'll "forget"...

If someone spends 10 minutes researching the issue, instead of eating the cornbread and drinking the kool-aid, we'd have a lot of people asking questions that need to be asked.

Winning must be sweet. (4, Insightful)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952279)

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

I read "Earth in the Balance" in October before the 2000 presidential election just to get an idea of what Gore was like. Perhaps slashdotters might be better able than the average joe to appreciate what writing a book requires: thinking about something. Questions, hypotheses, research, thinking. The philosopher Ortega wrote that the act of thinking about things instantly puts you in the minority; most people don't do it. Well, Gore does it. Maybe his personality isn't suited to the job of presidency, although it's hard to imagine that he would have been worse than Bush. But just maybe this role suits him better. He deserves the recognition he is getting now. Bush vs Gore: I know whose legacy I'd rather claim.

Re:Winning must be sweet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20952331)

Perhaps slashdotters might be better able than the average joe to appreciate what writing a book requires: thinking about something.


Hiring a ghost writer...

Why the peace prize? (0, Redundant)

Chineseyes (691744) | more than 6 years ago | (#20952379)

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".

What Al Gore is doing is important but based on those standards how does Al Gore win the peace prize?

Look at the list of former Nobel Peace Prize Winners [wikipedia.org] many of these people risked their lives or personal fortunes in endeavors that made the world a more peaceful place. Al Gore made a film about Global warming and crusades for the cause. Talk about cheapening the award.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>