The Nobel Committee awarded Al Gore with it’s most prestigious prize. The Peace Prize. 
In explaining, what is clearly a controversial decision, the Nobel Committee said that Al Gore was the,
In explaining, what is clearly a controversial decision, the Nobel Committee said that Al Gore was the, "[S]ingle individual" responsible for convincing world government's that climate change was real, caused by human activity, and posed a threat to society”.
This choice by the committee is going to be a lightning rod stuck right in the heart of the committee, for the following reasons.
Al Gore is a leading voice in the Democratic Party.
Conservatives for years have been raising the valid question of why President Ronald Reagan, or at least Pope John Paul II, did not receive an award for their work towards ending the cold war and bringing greater freedom throughout Eastern Europe.
Is Global Warming really the threat Al Gore, The Panel on Climate Change
and most scientists say it is?
Would it have been more appropriate to award Gore, let’s say an award in science, rather that “The Peace Prize.”
My answers to the above questions are:
1. Every decision has a large “Value” component. Last time I checked the noble Committee is in Sweden, definitely not a “Red State.” I do think that the more objective and evenhanded the decisions are, the more powerful they become.
2. There is no question that all of that “Evil Empire” rhetoric, I sure did little to help his chance at the “Peace Prize” The case for Pope John Paul II is much stronger.
3. I have to assume that the most direr of the predictions regarding global warming, fall into the category of “Hysteria”. While I do believe most of the basic science and data, the earth is such a complex system that it becomes extremely difficult to extrapolate out very far with dependable results. There is also the question that even if you believe that Global Warming is a real threat, that still leaves the questions, is it caused by man, and is there anything Man can do to change the Global Temperature?
I find it difficult to go against the overwhelming tide of scientists that seem convinced that Global Warming is a genuine problem. Some times I feel my position can best be described as “Better safe than sorry”. If even half of the predictions turn out to be valid, there is reason for concern. I can’t think of any other time that this large a percentage of scientists have gathered this much evidence and been completely wrong. (True there was a time the vast % of people believed the world to be flat, but that was not science speaking) .
4. Truth be told, I find “Why not an award in science, rather that “The Peace Prize,” To be the most difficult question to answer. I assume the explanation would go something like:
If global warming causes floods and or draughts, or land get swallowed up by the sea, there will be mass displacement of population and that will result in great unrest and additional wars.
Was the committee sending a message, yes? Maybe they felt bad about not giving Gore an award for “Investing the Internet.”
Al Gore is a leading voice in the Democratic Party.
Conservatives for years have been raising the valid question of why President Ronald Reagan, or at least Pope John Paul II, did not receive an award for their work towards ending the cold war and bringing greater freedom throughout Eastern Europe.
Is Global Warming really the threat Al Gore, The Panel on Climate Change
and most scientists say it is?
Would it have been more appropriate to award Gore, let’s say an award in science, rather that “The Peace Prize.”
My answers to the above questions are:
1. Every decision has a large “Value” component. Last time I checked the noble Committee is in Sweden, definitely not a “Red State.” I do think that the more objective and evenhanded the decisions are, the more powerful they become.
2. There is no question that all of that “Evil Empire” rhetoric, I sure did little to help his chance at the “Peace Prize” The case for Pope John Paul II is much stronger.
3. I have to assume that the most direr of the predictions regarding global warming, fall into the category of “Hysteria”. While I do believe most of the basic science and data, the earth is such a complex system that it becomes extremely difficult to extrapolate out very far with dependable results. There is also the question that even if you believe that Global Warming is a real threat, that still leaves the questions, is it caused by man, and is there anything Man can do to change the Global Temperature?
I find it difficult to go against the overwhelming tide of scientists that seem convinced that Global Warming is a genuine problem. Some times I feel my position can best be described as “Better safe than sorry”. If even half of the predictions turn out to be valid, there is reason for concern. I can’t think of any other time that this large a percentage of scientists have gathered this much evidence and been completely wrong. (True there was a time the vast % of people believed the world to be flat, but that was not science speaking) .
4. Truth be told, I find “Why not an award in science, rather that “The Peace Prize,” To be the most difficult question to answer. I assume the explanation would go something like:
If global warming causes floods and or draughts, or land get swallowed up by the sea, there will be mass displacement of population and that will result in great unrest and additional wars.
Was the committee sending a message, yes? Maybe they felt bad about not giving Gore an award for “Investing the Internet.”
Posts
9 comments:
"It's well deserved. ... I hope that the new Nobel Peace Prize winner will engage in serious activities with me and others" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through use of nuclear power and carbon credits for industry. - GOP presidential candidate John McCain.
neocon100 06:10:05 PM Oct 12 2007
Report This! I rather see him fighting and stopping climate change and pollution than him re-inventing internet
The computing/internet world has stated quite factually that Gore was the key, instrumental player in the development of a publically available "information highway" - what we now call the "internet". fact. he never said he invented it - he said he "helped create it". CNN was the one that said he invented it.
dgmck 06:18:07 PM Oct 12 2007
Report This! I'd like to ask Big Al one question, where are the daily temperature readings from the International Space Station for the last 10 years? Those reports would confrim whether the sun is getting hotter or man is really behind the problem? Saying some icebergs are melting and we are the reason is just plain stupid without concrete space analysis of the sun and its level of change.
China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, figures released today show.
The surprising announcement will increase anxiety about China's growing role in driving man-made global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China's emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world's biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year.
But according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, soaring demand for coal to generate electricity and a surge in cement production have helped to push China's recorded emissions for 2006 beyond those from the US already. It says China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US. Britain produced about 600m tonnes
I personally think the peace prize has been devalued quite a bit in recent years. Gore winning was a bit of a foregone conclusion as it allows the committee to send several messages at once: e.g. that Bush’s victory in 2000 was illegitimate (a conclusion with which I wholeheartedly agree) and that western industrial economies will be the death of the world. I think these messages had a lot more to do with their decision than anything Al Gore himself has done.
The award to Carter in 2002 showed that the committee had lost all objectivity. I also was tremendously dismayed when, after the breakout of the second intifada in 2000, the committee came within a hairsbreadth of revoking its 1994 awards to Peres and Rabin. They made an emphatic point that they were in no way contemplating revoking Arafat’s award, only the two Jewish recipients.
Regarding the whole global warming contretemps, check out this New York Times article here. It’s a fascinating look at the scientific consensus that eating fat makes one fat and unhealthy.
After reading the article, read it a second time substituting CO2 for fat and Global Warming for obesity and ill health. Tell me what you think.
rob@arrelle.com
rob@arrelle.com
Rob,
I did check out the New York Times article here
Yes, It is interesting when you replace CO2 for FAT.
It does make the most compelling case I have ever heard, for how science can “Get it wrong.”
However, in the above case, they did not get it totally wrong. No one is now saying, Go ahead and eat as much Fat as you can, or that there are not some benefits of watching fat consumption in the general public, and especially in those with cholesterol problems. The statement seems to be that fat consumption is a factor, one factor among many.
Any danger comes not from reducing fat consumption but from focusing too much attention there while leaving perhaps larger risks unchecked. or worse yet substituting an even greater danger.
The case that eating too little fat will hurt you, is much stronger than the notion that producing too little CO2 will hurt the planet.
I also come away with the following thoughts:
1. I would like to see the world send less money to the Arab states.
2. Pollution is not pleasant, regardless of whether or not it changes the global conditions.
3. I tend to LIKE the people on the environmental side better than the Oil guys. Except I hate all extremists, the ones of the “Left” bother my as much as the one’s on the right.” PETA people annoy me to no end)
4. IF, there is any truth to the global warming concept, I have a concern that “Solid” evidence will not come till it’s too late to do anything.
5. I would like to see if there is a way for the US to profit from the concern of global warming. If people drove less, cars got better mileage. We bought less gas, put out less pollution and were able to sell “Clean Technology” to the world- I think fighting global warming could be a good thing even if it’s not real threat.
Larry Lubell
I read today that Oil futures jumped to a new record close of $90.46 a barrel.
Even if Global Warming is real,
we still obviously have to stop using OIL.
$90 Dollars a barrel.
Give me a break!
Wasn't oil about $20 Dollars a barrel when the OIL MEN (Bush and Cheney) came into office.
I not that stupid to believe that is just a coincidence.
Bill Milstone
Milstone Construction
Bill,
Stranger things have happened!
Post a Comment