<p>Not a bad consolation after the presidency was stolen from him.</p>
<p>“Discredited socialist gets what he deserves.”</p>
<p>Pretty sad considering he didn’t do anything. He didn’t find an alternative fuel source. He didn’t discover some specific threat or new concern. He hasn’t actually done anything to clean up the environment, ozone, or anything. All he’s done was keep talking about how the environment is toast and how we have to fix it. Plus, he did all this at speeches where he got paid many times to give the speech. There’s a lot of people who wouldn’t mind speaking about anything if you paid them hundreds of thousands of dollars. He doesn’t deserve such recognition.</p>
<p>Gore is just an opportunist who can’t let go of the lime light he had, and doesn’t know how to become a useful member of society. I never voted or agreed with Bill Clinton, but at least he has class. He moved on with his life after serving. He maintains the professional courtesy that past presidents have exibited about the other presidents. Al Gore and Jimmy Carter however are 2 losers who don’t know how to move on. I have no respect for these 2 people; personally or professionally. I have respect for just about every president/VP to date. Whether I voted and agree with their policies or not. But Gore and Carter are both a disgrace.</p>
<p>Did you all read the legal decision from Britain with regard to showing the movie in schools? Interesting.</p>
<p>I’ve never been a big Al Gore fan but I do admire the work he’s done to increase awareness about climate change and the dangerous path we’re on. Bravo to him and to the IPCC on their win.</p>
<p>What does awareness of climate change have to do with peace? When Mount Pinatubo went off spewing 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide and changing global climate was the world more/less peaceful?</p>
<p>Standrews, last years Peace Prize was also given to an Environmentalist.</p>
<p>That said, I was shocked and disappointed to hear the news. It was not deserved, and has kind of reduced the honor receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.</p>
<p>Now maybe if there was a Nobel Prize for political propaganda…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>“What does awareness of climate change have to do with peace?”</p>
<p>“Mr Gore was praised as “probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted”, through his lectures, films and books.”</p>
<p>“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.”</p>
<p>a proactive action. don’t you think?</p>
<p>While we expect the Oscar nominating committee to recognize great performances because they are part of an entertainment industry, we should hold the Nobel Academy to a slightly higher standard. Unfortunately, this year’s prize seems to reward a bombastic and opportunistic … entertainer. </p>
<p>However, it’s not his fault he was picked. Just as it is not his work that was recognized. I wonder of the committee evaluated how much of his book Earth in the Balance gospel book was followed by positive policies during his eight years reign next to the White House, and how much the administration he was part of pursued world peace by desire versus necessity. </p>
<p>Oh well, there have been stranger Nobel prize winners. At least, they did not give it to Gore for scientific advancement.</p>
<p>What evidence is there to suggest that human response to climate change will bring, “increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states”? For instance, does the Kyoto Treaty increase or decrease the likelihood of conflict? Treaties that impose bad solutions, like the Treaty of Versailles, can lead to more conflict, not less.</p>
<p>The bile supply of the right wing is bottomless. How does the saying go? “If you want to anger people, lie to them; if you want to absolutely enrage them, tell them the truth.” </p>
<p>No wonder they can’t stop hatin’ on Al.</p>
<p>Kluge, does it have anything to do with “hating” by right-wingers? What do you think would have happened if Al Gore had been a republican (following a focus group’s advice) and won this prize? Muted lamentations of hypocrisy? Attacks on his financial empire? Attacks on the electricity bills at the Gore mansion?</p>
<p>PS In other news, Roger Moore got a star on Hollywood Blvd for his portrayal of James Bond. You could have switched the recipient of the Nobel and the star and find as many good reasons to support the choice!</p>
<p>“think would have happened if Al Gore had been a republican”</p>
<p>No chance. The republican hate machine would have buried him.</p>
<p>xiggi…go easy on the guy. After all he did ‘invent’ the internet. Correct?</p>
<p>“At least, they did not give it to Gore for scientific advancement.”</p>
<p>Why shouldn’t he have? He did, after all, invent the internet;).</p>
<p>I’ve been hearing for years that awarding of The Nobel Peace Prize is fraught with politics. Somehow, I believe it.</p>
<p>Ok, where’s Mini about now? Min-neeeeee? Your que!</p>
<p>LOL—Simba beat me to it!:D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re kidding right? Just wait. Can you say “global upheaval?”</p>
<p>Ahhh, never mind. Put your heads back in the sand.</p>
<p>Poetsheart and Simba - you’re both victims of the spin machine. Look it up: <a href=“http://sethf.com/gore/[/url]”>http://sethf.com/gore/</a> for one source. What was that about a lie being halfway around the world before the truth gets its shoes on?</p>
<p>Let’s peek into a worse case scenario future where millions of people living in low lying cities/countries/areas become refugees due to raising seas as a direct result of global warming; this would have an enourmous negative impact on world peace.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, how many times do you think the word “peace” could be heard in the Inconvenient Truth movie? How many times could one find it on the web sites dedicated to Al Gore? </p>
<p>Does anyone doubt that some staff members are furiously rewriting the material to ensure “peace” can be found … somewhere on the site? Being a chameleon and shedding the old skin for the new one every once in a while does wonder for the survival of the unfittest.</p>
<p>unsoccermom:</p>
<p>I’ll play along. </p>
<p>Question: where and where has Al ever identified the elephant in the room, i.e., carbon fuels? If he (and others) are so concerned, why has he not been using his bully pulpit to goad official Washington into a massive increase in the carbon fuels tax (which would immediately reduce use and therefore pollution)? THAT would be real leadership, IMO. Instead, he hides behind new light bulbs.</p>