WingColors

I laughed out loud when I read the headline.

Psuedo scientific alarmist movies = nobel prize? Wow. Well there goes another thing off my list of respect.

Well, it's like setting peace between human beings and the planet they live in. Quite a huge challange I would say... And Mr. Gore is definitely a master.

Like they said when he got an Oscar... they give those things to works of Fiction too...

"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"

The IPCC... a political panel whose sole purpose is to link humans and climate change, and a former politician who's sole purpose is to link humans and climate change and has ADMITTED to mistakes and falsehoods in his own film.

When do I get mine?

Trying to get all the countries in this world to agree on anything seems lik some sort of peace to me.
@affisch- I have to agree peace between human beings and the planet they live on is a great idea.

Considering Yassir Arafat won the thing it doesn't have much credibility anyway, why not give it to sore loser hack for his junk science opus?

and has ADMITTED to mistakes and falsehoods in his own film.

Would you prefer he not admit to mistakes? Mind you, I'm not a fan of the falsehoods, but at least he's admitted to those. Better than some, I'd say. Better than what a small, small person would do, say, like an unpopular President who would get us stuck in a war with no actual success strategy. Frankly, the ability to admit mistakes -- especially at that level -- makes me respect the guy even more.

I'm with Bloglily here: I think a new category should have been created. However, I think that given the current parameters, the prize was well deserved.

Of course, if you disliked Al Gore to begin with then you'll hate the fact that he just won the peace prize. And you'll make fun of him for trying to do something about what he sees as an important issue, while at the same time applauding those folks whose only accomplishments are disagreeing with him.

Then there's the rest of the world, including most Nobel-laureates in scientific fields, who actually support him, agree with him, and don't have their heads buried in the sand.

Next step: President. Seriously, the man should run, and I believe he'd get re-elected. (Gore/Obama '08!) He'd have my vote in a second.

Heliophage, Ad hominum arguments, like the one you've just made (calling Al Gore a "sore loser hack" is an ad hominum argument), and the one you made over at the note about "gay" as a hate crime when you called another commenter a name, are not impressive. Maybe even more to the point, they aren't effective. They make people discount you, and your argument. You don't see them often at 9rules, because people here tend to address the issue at hand, which is not really "do you like Al Gore" but more "what's up with the Nobel Peace Prize giving an award for activities in an area that many, on first glance, would not consider to be about peace/conflict resolution."

@Affisch, That's a very interesting point -- if people are at war with the planet, I suppose getting them to behave better to the environment is a sort of "peace" activity. Of course, the planet hasn't exactly gone to war with us yet, so it's a pretty one-sided conflict.

Would you prefer he not admit to mistakes and what were likely falsehoods based on his understanding at the time? Frankly, the ability to admit mistakes -- especially at that level -- makes me respect the guy even more.

It's not just the blatant lies, it's also the fact that he has admitted that he exaggerated claims in the movie to scare people.

All really good points on why saving the earth is in the peace category. On one hand, I like how people are challenged to reconsider their traditional perspectives on "peace," but I guess I would have liked to see someone honored with bringing peace to the war-plagued world we have right now.

Al Gore does get applause in my book, though, for bringing the global warming issue to the forefront. I realize that he admitted to blowing statistics out of the water but I wouldn't discount his passion (and politics admittedly) for the issue.

Somewhat related, the SmartCar is coming to the U.S. in 2008. I want to get one. :)

It's not just the blatant lies,

What are some of the "blatant lies"? Everything I've seen called a "blatant lie" is, at worst, disputed results based on certain evidence.

As for the "exaggerated claims" yeah, I'll give you that. He did make some exaggerated claims. So the solution is... ignoring the claims altogether, calling him a liar, and burying the whole topic? Ignoring the evidence that points to this being a very real issue, especially at a time where the US president and vice president are actively working with energy companies to downplay global warming concerns, including editing climate reports.

Heck, let's not even start on the attacks on Gore himself by Big Oil.

Someone whose work is based on "exaggerated claims" of any substance should not be awarded a Nobel Prize. I'd be interested to hear what those claims are, and why they are of substance.

Here's an example of an exaggerated claim: "There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." It obviously was a claim of substance because it led us to launch an expensive war in which a lot of people have died. Were I a Swedish person on the Nobel Peace Prize committe I probably wouldn't be giving that award to the person who made that claim.

bloglily: most of the exaggerated claims came by way of timelines. Something which is expected to happen in 500 years happening in 100 instead. Stuff like that.

However, Gore didn't win the Nobel for "An inconvenient truth", he won it because of the body of his work for the past few years concerning the issue.

Gnorb, What's interesting is how truly unnecessary it is to exaggerate like that and how destructive it can be to your credibility and how terribly, terribly common it is.

When I first started practicing law, a juror told me that she respects lawyers the most when they tell the jury they know the weak points in their arguments. I think that's because you tend to trust people who aren't afraid to admit stuff like that. You can still convince people you're right even if you have to say, yes, this is a weakness. What's ironic is that you might have a better chance of winning your case that way because you'll have more credibility.

Or the CO/Heat charts he uses that conveniently leave out the data showing an 800 year lag where CO2 FOLLOWS temperature?

I know full well WHY he won the prize, I still think his movie played a good hand in it. Not saying it's THE reason.

Also, Heliophage... I'd back off on the personal attacks, they tend to lead to a big fat BAN from Notes.

I know full well WHY he won the prize, I still think his movie played a good hand in it.

Well, yeah. When was the last environmental documentary that grossed millions, got mass public attention, and woke up large segments of the population internationally to any issue? Of course it played a part in it. So did starting up organizations where the focus was to bring awareness to the issue and helping other groups get the word about efforts to help the environment out, and doing it all on a global scale that may indeed foster the seeds for increased peace through understanding and unification against a common foe.

Sounds dreamy and fanboyish, but it's true, these were his accomplishments. And at a time when America = Warmonger in the minds of too many, an American working for a global cause for the benefit of all is a breath of fresh air. (All pun intended.)

It was my understanding the connection to world peace was the threat climate change has to create conflict and war in the event of resource shortages, the redistribution of populations due to desertification and rising sea levels, etc.

The definition of "peace" has become more flexible. Past winners have included Doctors Without Borders, anti-landmine groups, etc. List here.

in the event of resource shortages, the redistribution of populations due to desertification and rising sea levels

I still think it's a bit iffy since his whole premise relies on mankind being THE cause.

We can TELL we're getting warmer, his aim is to link it to US as a sidenote to trying to see if there is a way to control mother nature.

I have nothing to offer. Gnorb has done well from my point of view.

what a mess... I sometimes wonder if people are agreeing with him to make him be quiet.

I started losing respect for the Nobel Prize when it was awarded to Jimmy Carter.

Completely missed this note, but Gnorb's been covering my side of the argument quite well.

Regarding a peace prize being handed out for work regarding environmental issues, I can see where you're coming from Bloglily. But I see the two as so interrelated that I don't find it irritating or wrong.

Natural disasters or harsh environmental conditions eat up our resources, and scarce resources tend to entail conflict. So in that sense I see a direct connection between preserving peace and preserving our environment, thus justifying the award.

Edit: A category separating the issues could be a good idea for future awards, though.

Muhammad_Yunus won the Nobel Prize for Economics for his use of micro loans in Bangledesh. Al Gore's win is nothing out of the ordinary and the guy deserves it.