I just want to know when my PowerPoint slides will get me a Nobel. Hell, I'll just settle for a permanent job.

Completely Agree with your question.

Look at countries like Germany who have for quite some time had a strong stance on environmental change (i.e. the success of the green party there).

Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is a tremendous award, but he hasn't done anything tangible yet as in a change in policy. People who believe in his cause say what he has done is great, but is nothing new. And those who don't believe him, denounce him. The day Al Gore effects change, beyond raising C.A.F.E. standards, when we "drive on light," he will truly be deserving of the prize.

As a Greek, I have to say yes. Gore went to Athens and gave his powerpoint presentation and he not only won the audience over on his side (admittedly not a tough task), but refreshingly he epitomized the image of a country that's not simplistic, militaristic and inward, but thoughtful and cosmopolitan; that indeed is far more difficult as Greece is one of the most anti-American countries in Europe.

I would imagine that Gore -and his impressive presentation- caused similar reactions elsewhere.

Why doesn't the Nobel committee do something different, and give the peace prize to someone who's actaually expanded peace? Untested peace plans and weapons limitation efforts don't expand peace. Many of the dissidents who won the prize didn't expand peace.

I'd like to see someone plow through the list of Peace laureates and see how many of them produced actual results.

You can argue that Gore might only be marginally deserving of the award, but I think there aren't that many real candidates out there this year.

I STILL don't think about global warming, except when it's fifty below in January and I wish it would hurry the hell up.

Gore joins the ranks (and I do mean rank) of such luminaries as Carter and Arafat. Whoopee.

And no, not worldwide. Not even country-wide, actually. Just California-wide mostly and some influence in the guilt states of the Northeast.

You're asking the wrong question Dan. The quote was not giving Gore credit for increasing awareness of global warming as a problem (although that may some might argue could be attributed to Gore), but whether he has created worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted. So whether they intended that to be the quote or not (and I'm sure it was), they give credit to Gore for spreading awareness of the things that need to be done to "fix" the problem. Now that is a good question to ask. Can / should Gore be give credit for that?

You're asking the wrong question Dan. The quote was not giving Gore credit for increasing awareness of global warming as a problem (although that may some might argue could be attributed to Gore), but whether he has created worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted. So whether they intended that to be the quote or not (and I'm sure it was), they give credit to Gore for spreading awareness of the things that need to be done to "fix" the problem. Now that is a good question to ask. Can / should Gore be give credit for that?

This does sound a little more like the awarding of a Nobel International Good Guy Prize than a Nobel Peace Prize. But, the Peace Prize has to be awarded on a yearly basis, so some recipients are bound to be more and less worthy than others.

I'd be more enthusiastic if Gore had created more awareness of global warming's being first an enormous bio-engineering problem, then a complex political issue, and only after that a subject with moral and spiritual dimensions. What he actually seems to have produced is awareness that mankind needs to fix climate change by changing its ways, which is fine as a general proposition but not nearly as helpful with respect to specifics as the Nobel Committee appears to believe.

Dan asks, is it true?

President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, made the following statement:

"I congratulate Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the award of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. Their contributions to the prevention of climate change have raised awareness all over the world. Their work has been an inspiration for politicians and citizens alike."

So it must be true. :)

Well, in my case Al Gore has probably just confirmed my belief that most of the environmental lobby is just crass alarmism. For heaven's sake, if our Stone Age ancestors managed to survive the periods of cooling and warming that were the ice ages I imagine we will manage too.

Regarding the Gore/Bush comparison, there's something to be said for the view that Gore lucked out in not winning the presidency in 2000. Even if you reject the idea that Gore would likewise have gotten bogged down in Iraq (I don't), he would've been stuck with a recalcitrant Congress and a war in (at least) Afghanistan, rejection of the Kyoto accord, anti-terrorism measures spreading unhappiness abroad, civil liberties infringements at home, etc.

As it is, he was free to pursue other things important to him, and play the role of the anti-Bush without being immersed in politics. I give him full credit for his hard work and passion, but he also got damn lucky.

Gore's buffoonery did prompt me to think about global warming -- but mainly in the sense of what tremendous lengths the moneyed elite are willing to go when they embrace a messianic cause -- and what tremendous hardship they are willing to inflict upon the rest of us for the sake of their ego.

I noticed a strange thing about this. Bush got what was most important to Bush -- he won. Gore got what was most important to Gore -- vindication that he was right. I predict the Gore will NOT run for pres.

I'm just worried about the massive Smug hurricane which will ravage Southpark... :)

I think this is a total disgrace for the Nobel Committee. Not to the degree of giving Kissenger the prize, but yet pretty bad. Gore was VP for 8 years and did not make a single significant move to address climate change. Even, the Clinton/Gore administration did not even attempt to pass the Kyoto Protocol and signed the treaty in the dead of night on the last day of their administration. It is totally sickening that Gore is now seen as someone who is effecting the debate, when he was so hollow as VP. As was mentioned above, all he does now is fly in private jets back and forth to his appointments to show his lame slide show. His movie was more self-aggrandizement than it was a serious discussion of climate change. Gore is a propagandist, plain and simple. And I am someone who deeply believes in the need to address climate change, i just think Gore is full of it.

So when the Nobel Committee gives Gore the prize, it is obviously for publicity, not for accomplishments. There are thousands of people and NGOs who have been working on the ground for decades to make this issue a priority. People who have serious accomplishments to their credit. Even Tony Blair did more in England to lower their carbon emmissions and to set the UK on a green path than Gore's stupid slide show. Or how about Joschka Fischer of the German greens, who forced windmills and environmental policy on the biggest European economy? Or green groups like Friends of the Earth and/or Greenpeace... There are thousands of people who have serious accomplishments. That they gave the award to Gore (I agree with the IPCC part) is a sign that either 1) they did it as a publicity stunt, 2) they are pandering to the USA, or 3) they are complete idiots. I lean toward a hybrid of all three though. It is quite sad indeed.

"Well, in my case Al Gore has probably just confirmed my belief that most of the environmental lobby is just crass alarmism. For heaven's sake, if our Stone Age ancestors managed to survive the periods of cooling and warming that were the ice ages I imagine we will manage too."

Dear God, are we still hearing THAT one? Memo to Maskell: no one has ever said that most humans won't survive worst-case global warming. Most humans survived WW II, too -- and would have even had the Axis won it -- which hardly proves that it wasn't worth going to massive efforts to try and avoid it (or win it). And worst-case GW could kill a hell of a lot more people than WW II -- or even an Axis triumph. Especially, of course, given that we now have a massively swollen human population whose maintenance depends on keeping the world's agricultural productivity at peak efficiency, with little margin for error.

The best tactics for dealing with GW may consist to a large degree of successfully adapting to it, rather than preventing it -- but in any case they do NOT consist of sticking our heads in the sand.

Openborderman,

I don't think Gore's Nobel Peace Prize has "vidicated" him any more than Yassir Arafat's proved that he was a man of peace. Of course, Gore's mileage may vary.

Moomaw,

no one has ever said that most humans won't survive worst-case global warming. Most humans survived WW II, too -- and would have even had the Axis won it -- which hardly proves that it wasn't worth going to massive efforts to try and avoid it (or win it).

I love the analogy. Especially since it points up that the purpose of WW II wasn't to see how many people could be killed and things destroyed. Rather, it was to reverse the axis conquests and change their governments.

Similarly, our challenge today isn't to see how closely we can approximate a world without human activity. It is to minimimize the harmful effects of human prosperity.

create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted

Really? What measures might those be? As far as I can tell the only measure with worldwide understanding is to fly around the planet holding meetings. No one knows what to do. Saying "reduce CO2 emissions" isn't DOING anything. How? Who? When? At what cost?

While Gore is lauded for his prescience and insight, Bush will for some time—perhaps forever—be best known for lacking those same qualities.

A bit early to be making that prediction. It is POSSIBLE that global warming will turn out to be nothing (remember the coming Ice Age from the 1970s?) and that the Iraq manifest destiny initiative will end up working (we did bring democracy to Japan via invasion). Not necessarily "likely", but it is far too soon to have a certain verdict.

And what does evangelizing global warming have to do with "peace" anyway?

he would've been stuck with a recalcitrant Congress and a war in (at least) Afghanistan

Somehow I believe that Gore might have paid more attention to a 8/6/01 PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US."

We're cooling folks. We probably cooled from the thirties to the seventies, warmed to the late nineties, held steady for awhile, and are starting to cool. The globe's temperature is most dependent on clouds, determined by cosmic rays, determined by the strength of the earth's magnetism, determined by that of the sun's magnetism, determined by the wobble of the sun around the center of gravity of the solar system.

Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas with trace warming effect. Gerlich and Tscheuschner have shown that the IPCC's conception of greenhouse global warming is unphysical, basically it requires the transmission of heat from a hot upper stratosphere through a cooler lower stratosphere to a warm troposphere. That violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
======================

Well, "kim," the libs will just repeal or ignore that law as they do everything else that does not fit in with their ridiculous world-view and nanny-state power play.

Novus Ordo Seclorum and hurry up please...

This does sound a little more like the awarding of a Nobel International Good Guy Prize than a Nobel Peace Prize. But, the Peace Prize has to be awarded on a yearly basis, so some recipients are bound to be more and less worthy than others.

It actually doesn't. It was most famously not awarded during WWI or most of WWII, but more recently there was no prize awarded for 1967 or 1972. I don't know what the stories were there, or for that matter for 1976 (the prize money was reserved during 1976, but then the award for 1976 was awarded in 1977 to the co-founders of a Northern Ireland peace group, while a separate 1977 prize was given the same year to Amnesty International). But presumably they could do the same now, if they wanted to concentrate on peace as such and couldn't identify a candidate who they believed fit the bill.

What WOMBAT!!!

Did US greenhouse emissions rise or fall during the wonderful years when God placed Al Gore in the VP slot? What did he do in the Senate? What were Bill and Hill doing to reduce greenhouse emissions?

Did Bill-Hill-Al ever show enough courage to submit the Kyoto Treaty they negotiated before the US Senate? How many Senate Democrats would have voted for it? If the Treaty had been ratified, would it have made any difference?

Maybe I missed it, but which Democrat candidate has advocated raising the gasoline excise tax by two dollars per gallon? Advocated doubling retail electricity prices? Embraced building a wind turbine farm off of Cape Cod? Endorsed an aggressive program for nuclear power? Oddly enough, Rep. Dingell from MI (i.e., Detroit) has pushed the tax issue only to embarrass his fellow Democrats into backing off.

Flying one's Gulfstream to conferences to raise planetary consciousness is fun, but it won't lower the temperature.