Alfred Nobel is turning in his grave.....

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1118887020071012

Gore widely tipped for Nobel Peace Prize Friday

By John Acher

OSLO (Reuters) - Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and other climate campaigners appear front-runners to win the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their drive for tougher action to combat global warming.

Finland's former president Martti Ahtisaari is also tipped by experts and odds-makers as a possible winner.

The winner of the 2007 peace prize will be announced in the Norwegian capital on Friday at 11 a.m. (0900 GMT) from 181 candidates. The committee that awards the $1.5 million prize often confounds the pundits.

Gore, who has urged action to slow warming with his book and Oscar-winning documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth," could win alone or share the award with the U.N. climate panel or Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, Norway's NRK television said.

"Such an award would fall under the expanded concept of peace but the activity can be linked to the climate-conflict combination and is highly timely," said NRK veteran journalist Geir Helljesen who has a solid record of tipping prize winners.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which awards the prize, reached its decision on Monday, unusually close to the announcement which Helljesen said might be a sign that the five members from five political parties found it a difficult choice.

The U.N. climate panel, officially called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), groups 2,500 scientists and issued a series of reports this year blaming mankind for global warming and outlining solutions.

Watt-Cloutier, 53, is a representative of indigenous Arctic people whose lives are altered by the melting of the polar ice. Continued...

OK, STOP....

You're telling me that a man whose methods are non-scientific in "combating" "climate change" is a nominee for the Nobel PEACE Prize!?!?

What exactly does this have to do with peace?

Secondly, Gore uses no scientific evidence in his presentation. I have yet to hear any sources, just "scientists" and various incidents that "support" his claims.

Global warming is not from industrial CO2. The CO2 Al Gore talks about comes from the oceans. Ever left a soda out on a hot day? Flat, right? Hotter Earth = Oceans release more CO2.

In addition, if it were humans that raised the temps the amazing 1/2 degree its gone up in the last centrury, it would be the population. In 1900 the world population was around 3.5 Billion, now its around 7 Billion. Last I checked, the average CO2 output of a person is about 2 liters per hour. So I pump out more CO2 daily than my car anyway.

It couldn't be that we're coming out of a 10,000 year ice age or a 74,000 year sun-spot cycle, no, that wouldn't fit the agenda.

Oh, BTW. The IPCC is a joke. Those who didn't link it to mankind were fired, but still credited to the report.

What next? Paul Helmke gets the Nobel Prize for Chemistry because gun control becomes a "science" !?

Just thought I stir up some thread.............

[Guest bkelm18]

But he invented the internet....

[Marswolf]

Gore won.

He fits right in with some of the other winners:

* 2002 - Jimmy Carter

* 2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan

* 1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin

* 1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk

* 1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev

* 1977 - Amnesty International

* 1973 - Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho

* 1964 - Martin Luther King

[Smith]

Gore won.

He fits right in with some of the other winners:

* 2002 - Jimmy Carter:koolaid: HEHEHEHEEHEHEHHEHE

* 2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan:koolaid:

* 1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin

* 1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk:koolaid:

* 1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev:koolaid:

* 1977 - Amnesty International:koolaid::koolaid:

* 1973 - Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho

* 1964 - Martin Luther King

I'm thinking a name change is in order. the Nobel Peace Prize is now - The Liberal Recognition Award, or perhaps the Humanist, Progressive, Self-Propagation Award, or the Old Hippie Award.

Is it even relevant anymore.....or was it ever anyway?

[molonlabetn]

Left-wing circle-jerk?

[Guest erict]

Left-wing circle-jerk?

[Marswolf]

[The Rabbi]

Both the Peace Prize and the Literature Prize have long been jokes. They are highly politicized. For example, Jorge Luis Borges, probably the most influential South American writer ever, never won the prize.

And yeah, awarding the prize to Yessir Imafart is a sad cruel joke on all his victims.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Gore won.

He fits right in with some of the other winners:

* 2002 - Jimmy Carter

* 2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan

* 1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin

* 1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk

* 1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev

* 1977 - Amnesty International

* 1973 - Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho

* 1964 - Martin Luther King

I beg to differ. All of these at one time had something to do with "peace" (even if it was fake peace). Al Gore has nothing to do with peace. Oh, wait,

Al Gore is fighting the epic battle of Man vs. Earth. I take the side of man! Everyone! Take out your swords, guns, baseball bats and begin thrusting, shooting, and slamming the ground! She can't take it forever! She'll be dead in 100 years (according to Al Gore).

[Guest Rooster]

I cant remember where I read this but, a while back Al Gore was in New York State giving a speech on global warming and it just happened to be the coldest recorded day for that specific day in the city he was in.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

UPDATE

Gore won with the IPCC. The Nobel committee's reasoning, global warming could create conflicts.

Is it just me, or when was the last war fought over the weather?

It is 3 degrees above historical average! ATTACK!!!!

[Guest Len]

What exactly does this have to do with peace?

Actually, this is not so far-fetched. US national security experts have already been studying this very thing. (An article about this appeared on Military.com's "Daily Brief" a while back.) A warmer world with concurrent changes in food and water supplies can lead to war and terrorism. This is already being seen in parts of Africa. Closer to home, 5 nations (including the US) are embroiled in a dispute about access to the northwest passage. With the arctic ice at its lowest levels in recorded history, an open sea lane across the "top" of the world would be a vital strategic resource. Plus who knows what minerals/oil lurks below the arctic? Mankind has gone to war for odder reasons than global warming.

As for the rest, its fairly well understood by most climate scientists that the Gore film is a bit exaggerated at times, but the underlying research, as detailed in the voluminous and peer-reviewed IPCC reports, is sound. There is no longer any serious scientific doubt about climate change. Its here, the debate is now about what to do about it. Even the present administration in DC has reluctantly come to the same conclusion -and they have done more to politicize science than any other US administration.

The politicization of science has got to stop. What's next? A radio talk show host decides that gravity is "pseudo-science?" Or maybe an expose by some think tank entitled "Oxygen, the Liberal Myth!"

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

As for the rest, its fairly well understood by most climate scientists that the Gore film is a bit exaggerated at times, but the underlying research, as detailed in the voluminous and peer-reviewed IPCC reports, is sound. There is no longer any serious scientific doubt about climate change. Its here, the debate is now about what to do about it.

Yes and no. Is the climate change is apparent. It's the causes and methods for dealing with it are not exactly clear. While IPCC findings were scientifically sound, they were still with confirmation bias. This subject needs to be analyzed and dealt with by our great independent thinkers, not by politicians and those they fund. I agree, politics is polluting (pardon my pun) what would otherwise be something we come to understand through science and exploration.

[towerclimber37]

Thats ok, Len. One of the "experts" that Gore cited when he made his movie is the same one that, back in 1976, was screaming that our pollution was going to trigger another ice age.

call me silly if you want to, but I believe that all it is, is a way for gore to make money.

and oh yah, last winter, an expedition to the antarctic to do some experiments on global warming had to turn back. it seems one of the little tree huggers got frostbite on most of her toes and all their batteries got drained from the extreme cold.

the headlines on that were "global warming expedition turns back due to frostbite".

[Guest Phantom6]

UPDATE

Gore won with the IPCC. The Nobel committee's reasoning, global warming could create conflicts.

Is it just me, or when was the last war fought over the weather?

It is 3 degrees above historical average! ATTACK!!!!

“There are already climate wars unfolding,” the head of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs Jan Egeland told Reuters. “I think the whole issue of climate change and the environment will come at some point and reflect in the [Nobel Peace] prize.”

That convoluted bit-o-logic is what is known as an "AlGoreithm".

[towerclimber37]

hahahah

man..Al Gore is some piece of work..

Father of the internet AND Global climate change guy? he's a prodigy in his times right? heh..more like his son..he's a slimy creature.

[Marswolf]

You know, Al Gore's interest in the possibility of man-made global warming goes back to at least 1969. when he took a class with Professor Roger Revelle, one of the first scientists to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

He was elected a US Representative in 1976 and co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste and global warming.

This isn't something the just developed an interest in after he lost the presidential election.

Some of his claims in the movie are overblown and illogical, but we do have global warming. The question is what is causing it and what to do about it.

Rush Limbaugh to the contrary, science is a matter of consensus and that consensus is growing daily that this warming trend may not be a natural cycle.

I'm not prepared at this point to draw a firm conclusion. I'll just keep examining the evidence.

[fury2neon]

Umm, have you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear? Its a good story but it is also filled with actual scientific data that disproves the man-made global warming theory. Did you know that Paris has actually cooled over the past 100 years?

Also on a side note look up the temperatures for Copper Basin, Tennessee and Chattanooga. Chattanooga has warmed 1 degree on average over fifty years and Copper Basin has cooled by one degree and they are less than 50 miles apart.

[SHbicycle]

BURN BABY BURN!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAAAA

Man this Kool-aid is good warm. Oh Ya

[Marswolf]

Umm, have you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear? Its a good story but it is also filled with actual scientific data that disproves the man-made global warming theory.

Uh, no offense, but I don't think Michael Crichton is a very good source for scientific information. And man-made global warming has not been proven wrong. To the contrary, the vast majority of scientists working in the field think it is true.

I don't know yet. I'm just keeping an open mind.

Now if you want to say that Al Gore is a jerk, I'll wholeheartedly agree with you.

[fury2neon]

Uh, no offense, but I don't think Michael Crichton is a very good source for scientific information. And man-made global warming has not been proven wrong. To the contrary, the vast majority of scientists working in the field think it is true.

I don't know yet. I'm just keeping an open mind.

Now if you want to say that Al Gore is a jerk, I'll wholeheartedly agree with you.

Yes, Al is a jerk.

But the list of sources Crichton used is filled with the best scientific data available. The end of the book list everyone of them. You can poopoo him for being a fiction writer but if you read the research sources he has made the case that not only is Al and his bunch are jerks but they are also scientific propagandist lying through their teeth.

[fury2neon]

Oh yeah, for centuries it was the majority scientific opinion that the world was flat. Majority never rules in science only research and the research that the press wont cover does not back up global warming thats why the enviro wackos are switching to "climate Change" because the data is shifting again to a cooling trend over all.

[The Rabbi]

Actually, this is not so far-fetched. US national security experts have already been studying this very thing. (An article about this appeared on Military.com's "Daily Brief" a while back.) A warmer world with concurrent changes in food and water supplies can lead to war and terrorism. This is already being seen in parts of Africa. Closer to home, 5 nations (including the US) are embroiled in a dispute about access to the northwest passage. With the arctic ice at its lowest levels in recorded history, an open sea lane across the "top" of the world would be a vital strategic resource. Plus who knows what minerals/oil lurks below the arctic? Mankind has gone to war for odder reasons than global warming.

This is nonsense. Lots of things can lead to war but global warming isnt one of them, nor is it especially imminent, assuming it is actually happening, it is caused by human beings, it is deleterious, it can be changed, and the change will be cost effective.

Far more threatening is global Muslim radicalization, that has killed thousands of people already. The only reason we have not seen many terrorist incidents is that the US, under Pres Bush, has pursued a vigorous policy of degrading their capabilities.

So why isn't Pres Bush up for the Nobel Peace Prize? Oh yeah, that wouldnt be PC.

[Guest Ghostrider]

Rush Limbaugh to the contrary, science is a matter of consensus and that consensus is growing daily that this warming trend may not be a natural cycle.

Science by consensus? I don't think that's "science". It smells like politics.

I haven't seen any "evidence", at this point, that indicates this is anything but another solar cycle. Check the sunspot data.

http://http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

Most of these "measurements" date from the high period around the turn of the century. It's an 11 year cycle, so we're due to peak again around 2011, but some predictions are that this cycle will come sooner, be stronger, and last longer than any previously recorded.

[Guest Phantom6]

It was reported that Al Gore celebrated the night away after the announcement was made.