Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize


Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2007
Washington state
Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize, a remarkable achievement by a man who has been vilified by the right wing. America should be proud to call Al Gore one of their own.

Press Association
Friday October 12, 2007

Former US vice president Al Gore has shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The judges recognized their efforts to compile and spread knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures to fight it.

Gore, who won an Academy Award earlier this year, had been widely tipped to win the prize.

"His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change," the citation from the panel in Norway said.

"He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

Climate change has been at the top of the world agenda this year. The UN climate panel has been releasing its reports; talks on a replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate are set to resume; and on Europe's northern fringe, where the awards committee works, concern about the melting Arctic has been underscored by this being International Polar Year.

In recent years, the Norwegian committee has broadened its interpretation of peacemaking and disarmament efforts outlined by Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel in creating the prize with his 1895 will.

The prize now often also recognizes human rights, democracy, elimination of poverty, sharing resources and the environment.
Its so funny yesterday I received a letter in the mail (with a CA return address) asking me to sign on to a petition against the current Al Gore theory on global warming.

Attached to the letter were elaborate studies, colored charts etc ...explaining why Global Warming is a hoax. The conclusion these people drew was ...global warming (based on the studies done recently) has existed for 1000's of years. In other words all the data shown to prove the present crisis ...occurred in the past ..and just part of a cycle.
Obvioulsy I shred the document and threw it in the garbage.

Politically though ..I'd vote for Gore over Hillary any day.

Looking back I think what helped sink Gore in '00 was Joe-jew-Liberman and his AIPAC agenda!
Popeye, while usually you and I are on the same page, but regardless of what happened in 2000, whatever shady dealings might or might not have gone on...there is little point to dwell on it. Ultimately, Bush didnt steal the election, Nader did. It simply boils down to that. I dont know if I would support Gore over anyone actually in the race. It does little good to speculate unless and until he does enter the race. If he did, it would certainly shake things up to say the least though. More than Gore, I wish Gen. Clark would have jumped in at this point. I have the sinking feeling you may see his name come up when it comes time for a DNC vice-prez though.
Unbelievable. While Gore and you all are so consumed in global warming and pretending to be environmentalists, real environmental harms are occurring. How many children in third world countries die from water pollution? How many people die due to the burning of bio fuels indoors to keep warm. Millions! and you are worried about something that might or might not happen.
With this list of U.S. Nobel Peace Prize winners you can see Al Gore now finds himself in excellent company. No amount of right wing spin can change the fact that this was an achievement of the highest order. Isn't it interesting that of the two candidates for president in the disputed election of 2000, the winner has the lowest presidential approval rating ever recorded, while the loser is now a Nobel laureate.

1906: Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States. Collaborator on various peace treaties, most notably the end of the Japanese-Russian war.

1912: Elihu Root, Former Secretary of State. Originator of various treaties of arbitration.

1919: Thomas Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States. Founder of the League of Nations.

1925: Charles Gates Dawes, Vice President of the United States. Chairman of Allied Reparation Commission. (Shared with Sir Austen Chamberlain of the U.K., Foreign Secretary; Part Originator of Locarno Pact.)

1929: Frank Billings Kellogg, Former Secretary of State. Part-originator of Briand-Kellogg Pact, an international treaty "providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy."

1931: Jane Adams, Sociologist. International President, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. Nicholas Murray Butler, President, Columbia University. Promoter of Briand-Kellogg Pact.

1945: Cordell Hull, Former Secretary of State. Prominent participant in the creation of the United Nations.

1946: Emily Greene Balch, Former Professor of History and Sociology; Honorary International President, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. John Raleigh Mott, Chairman, International Missionary Council; President, World Alliance of Young Men's Christian Associations.

1947: American Friends Service Committee (The Quakers). Washington, D.C. First official meeting 1672. (Shared with the Friends Service Council (The Quakers) in London, U.K. Founded in 1647.)

1950: Ralph Bunche, Professor at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Director, Division of Trusteeship, U.N. Acting Mediator in Palestine, 1948.

1953: George Catlett Marshall, General President American Red Cross. Ex-Secretary of State and of Defense. Originator of Marshall Plan for the redevelopment of Europe following World War II.

1962: Linus Carl Pauling, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif. Honored for his campaign against above-ground nuclear testing. (Pauling won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1954.)

1964: Martin Luther King, Jr., Leader of Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

1965: United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), New York, N.Y. Founded by the U.N. in 1946.

1970: Norman E. Borlaug, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico City.

1973: Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of State, State Department. (Shared with Le Duc Tho, Democratic Republic of Vietnam.)

1985: International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Boston, Mass.

1986: Elie Wiesel, Chairman, The President's Commission on the Holocaust.

1997: International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Launched in 1992. Jody Williams, Putney, Vermont.

2002: Jimmy Carter, Former President of the United States. For decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.

2007: Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., Former Vice President of the United States. For 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. (Shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Founded in 1988.)
Save your breath dude...its obvious how the right is going to respond to this. As always they'll look to attack the organization giving Gore the prize. They'll try personal attacks ...and try to demonoze and villify the organization ..at best they'll ignore it and hope it goes away.

Remember how bush treated the UN? They are useless when they disagree with him. When they stood in his way of going into Iraq they are useless....but when they helped him get the UN resolution against Iran you would think this resolution came down from heaven itself.

Like I said ...save your breath.
USMC, let me tell you brother, I dont know what is causing it, but Im leaning towards burning of carbon, fossil fuels etc. But I live in Alaska, and trust me. Things arent the same as they were even 10 years ago. I could bring you to places that should be under literally under 100 feet of ice, and now there are small trees growing. It is raining at my house right now. 10 years ago, undoubtedly it would be snow. When I was a kid, trick or treating was done in two feet of snow, and heavily bundled up. Now it is done is break up boots and a rain coat.
The real story is Gore has been right on just about all the major issues for quite a while now. He opposed the invasion of Iraq from the start for one thing.

On the environment the reality that larger populations & human behavior are contributing to climate change is a fact... and Gore has been talking about environmental issues why back before it became hip to do so.

How fast we screw up the planet is really the only question... not if. To me I don't care if the major damage and its consequences are 50, 100 or 150 years off. The right thing to do is try and modify our behavior as much as is reasonably possible and work on clean energy applications to put off even more environmental damage while we try to learn long term solutions.

A BIG salute to Al Gore. Congrats on the PEACE PRIZE. Al you done good! :)
Bunz, there is certainly some evidence that suggests the earth is warming. What is still unclear is whether the earth's dynamic climate is just going through a natural cycle or it is being caused by man's presence.

My position is just that it's kind of silly to give Gore a Nobel prize for making a dramatic gloom and doom documentary about man's contribution to global warming. If he wants some credibility he should (a) stop flying all over the place in his private lear jet (b) get a much more environmentally friendly home -- the Bush's have an extremely green house and (c) actually come up with solutions instead of just saying that man and the U.S. and the corporations and the oil companies are evil.

To date, the only person I have seen offer an kind of substantive solution to the potential global warming problems is Newt Gingrich. One of his thousands of Solutions Day (www.americansolutions.com) workshops was on "green conservatism". He's a lot smarter than me, obviously, and goes into much more detail but he essentially concedes to 90% of their global warming alarmism says, "okay, now what". And that's where conservatives have a significant advantage because the conservative core doctrine of less government intrusion, tax incentives, and market forces is much more suited for finding a "solution" to global warming than the leftist big government, take control of our lives, tax hike and regulate businesses into the ground (or overseas) philosophy.

This was on display during his climate change debate with John Kerry a while back and he is soon coming out with a book on the same topic.
When will the right quit making this a political issue and make it a scientific. Gore happens to do an inconvenient truth, and now you launch back with Gingrich. Regardless, USMC, do you like fishing? My home is the salmon capital of the world. Yes that is right. You fly up here. I will fly you out to the mountains north of here, and we will catch so many fish you wont be able to lift your arms the next day. Then I will tell you that 10-20 years ago, there was a glacier literally at least 100 feet of solid ice right were you would be standing. With willows so thick you wouldnt be able to spot a 10foot brown bear through them 10 yards away. The glacier in the meantime, has recceded around a bend and is no longer visible. But more importantly than the opinion of Gore or Gingrich, are my elder buddies, Gusty and Wassillee. They are quite worried. They have heard stories dating back literally 200 years from thier grandparents on how things were. They are blown away at how it is now. I am not talking about technology either(they rode dog sleds to school, and fished in rough seas in sail boats and hunted with atllatels)
But about what has happened to winter. PM me sometime and I could share some dramatic things with you that I know first hand on it. The largest change has happened since statehood in 59, when the diesel generator showed up, and people started getting automobiles, and more importantly the fishing boat fleet went from sails to inboard engines. But you get to Alaska. I will show you a good time.
So the smart ones on both sides of the aisle agree there is a problem. But it isnt for politicians to come up with solutions. It should be scientists. Unfortunatly politicians especially in DC have a tough time listening to the people who know best on any given issue. Can we at least agree that the current administration have done a great job of sticking thier heads in the ground and pretending nothing is happening? Dont get me wrong about Gingrich, he is a smart dude, and I respect him, even though I rarely agree with him. But the power and influence he holds in his party is nowhere near what Gore holds still.
Bunz, there is certainly some evidence that suggests the earth is warming. What is still unclear is whether the earth's dynamic climate is just going through a natural cycle or it is being caused by man's presence.

Isn't the real truth that the two things aren't mutually exclusive.

The earth does go through varying climate cycles. But that has nothing to do with the damage man made pollution does. We can't do anything about the natural cycles but we can absolutely scientifically prove that we can do something about not worsening the natural changes.

We have to find a balance. We can find ways to fund and create incentives for environmental betterment without wrecking the economy or bankrupting business. All that fear mongering talk directly reminds me of neo-con radio show huckster Glenn Beck's BS... and that's a problem.

I've noticed a dramatic shift over the last year. Haven't a lot of you noticed it? I bet most here have. Many, many people... even many major Conservatives, that first "pooh poohed" the whole Gore, An Inconvenient Truth angle have now had time to go back and look at multiple reports from sources other than the one their political opposite has brought forward and even they are now in agreement that man is definitely creating some serious adverse effects.

Gore deserves to be commended for his work... and we all can come together to work on reasonable, measured solutions. :)
Gore deserves to be commended for his work... and we all can come together to work on reasonable, measured solutions.

I don't agree top gun, because the liberal and conservative philosophies are so diometrically opposed it's hard for me to see a solution that would make all sides happy.
I don't agree top gun, because the liberal and conservative philosophies are so diometrically opposed it's hard for me to see a solution that would make all sides happy.

Most important things are difficult. The fact that something might be difficult doesn't mean it doesn't warrant working toward. I'm more optamistic... but then I whole heartedly believe a Democrat will be our next President and that along with the House & the Senate opens the log jam considerably.

I think everyone Republican or Democrat has some sense that our environment is important. We all see together now with gas prices that an over reliance on oil isn't a good long term situation to be in.

Take the "Global Warming" catch phrase out of it and focus on a cleaner environment and a lessening of our demand for oil... and things seem more doable and the divide lessens... IMO. :)