Al Gore tipped to win Nobel

[DrDNA]

""THE environmental campaigner Al Gore is being tipped as a favourite to win the Nobel peace prize in Oslo this Friday in a controversial move that could place saving the planet above saving people from war and conflict.

 

Gore, a former American vice-president and failed presidential candidate, has reinvented himself as the “Goracle” with a rock star following after presenting last year’s Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, about the dangers of climate change.

 

He was nominated for the Nobel prize jointly with Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian Inuit activist who has campaigned about the effect of climate change on Arctic peoples. "

..

.........

Some commentators in America, including the British writer Christopher Hitchens, believe he could use a Nobel win to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

 

“Can he stand to watch another Clinton walk away with a nomination that could have been, or could still be, his?” Hitchens asked. Close supporters believe the answer is yes. Gore appears to have concluded that the Democrats are satisfied with their candidates. ""

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2603982.ece

 

The obvious question is, does he deserve a Nobel Peace Prize?

[CDarwin]

I think the scientists who first started making people aware of global warming 30 years ago deserve one more than him.

[Sisyphus]

Weird. I suppose it depends on the wording of the original charter for the prize. Which I'm too lazy to look up...

 

Oh, and there's no way in hell he would run for president in 2008 because of this or for any other reason, excepting perhaps an explosion killing all the declared Democratic candidates at once.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I don't know what the criteria is for Nobel prize winners, but I don't doubt Gore's personal conviction and passion for the subject matter. I suppose if he gets it he should use it. I know I would have it on my resume.

[CDarwin]

It will make a backlash, I'm afraid. Gore's proved a bit too easy a target.

[Fred56]

Al Gore? Maybe in some distant age they will find something like this about him (this is a joke btw):

 

Then did Elgor descend from the mountain and spake he unto the people, saying: "Verily hast thee sinned and done evil, and hast thee caused great sorrow, and now wilt the very earth rise up, and destroy thee! She will send floods, and great storms, and plagues and pestilence. The hour of thy repentance is passed!"

 

And many quailed, and great fear was among them, but some said: "And who art thou, prophet? Howbeit thou dost pretend to tell us what will be? What authority or stricture hast thou against us? Begone!" and they did castigate him, and cast him out into the desert.

 

But Elgor gathered about him his followers, and succour was given unto him. Having respite from the unbelievers, Elgor came unto the Citadel and there was he brought before Jeymes the Unbeliever, and answered unto him, saying: "Liar and hypocrite! Long hast thou sought to deceive the people and conceal the Truth. Verily art thou damned!" but did the Great Unbeliever stop up his own ears, and wail and gnash his teeth, and a great smoke issued forth from his nostrils.

 

But Elgor quailed not, and strode forth and did smite the Unbeliever, and he fell upon the ground, and a great shaking of the earth was felt by all the people. And did Elgor triumph over Jeymes the Unbeliever and a great noise and rumour went out amongst the people and they spake each unto the other saying: "Who is this Elgor? Is he in truth a prophet? Howbeit he dwellest in such a great an house, and hast he many great and costly chariots and wagons?" and many would not believe...

[Pangloss]

Didn't he already win a Nobel for inventing the Internet?

 

But seriously, what does global warming have to do with peace? If THIS doesn't expose the Nobel process as ridiculously PC, I don't know what will.

[DrDNA]

Fred,

I've read what you posted 5 times now and I'm still laughing......Elgor...ROFL

[CDarwin]

But seriously, what does global warming have to do with peace? If THIS doesn't expose the Nobel process as ridiculously PC, I don't know what will.

 

Nobel's will states that the Peace Prize goes to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

 

By the strictest reading of that definition Einstein and Nelson Mandela probably shouldn't have won it either. It seems to have become an award broadly for those who work to promote general human welfare, which you could argue Al Gore has done by making a public case for global warming. The real difficulty I see is how effective Gore has really been in making that case to the public.

[iNow]

It seems to have become an award broadly for those who work to promote general human welfare, which you could argue Al Gore has done by making a public case for global warming. The real difficulty I see is how effective Gore has really been in making that case to the public.

He's taken the issue out of academia, and brought it to the fore in an otherwise unscientific, unaware populace. He definitely has relied on the work of others, but he also made that work more approachable and digestable to the untrained masses, hence generating dialog and conversations which were not had previously in many areas.

[john5746]

I guess they are just considering the last few years? The guy was VP for 8 years and I don't remember him saying or doing much about global warming.

[Pangloss]

It seems to have become an award broadly for those who work to promote general human welfare, which you could argue Al Gore has done by making a public case for global warming. The real difficulty I see is how effective Gore has really been in making that case to the public.

 

Like I said, politically correct parsing and interpretation. Next year it'll go to Jane Doe, single mother of three, struggling to pay her 14% mortgage on her salary as a hairdresser, for exposing the dangers of letting Republicans have power.

 

I don't know, they can do whatever they want I guess. I just think it's a shame to see such a prestigious award reduced to the level of droll partisanship. This suggests to me that it's now little more than a dress-up night for intellectual snobs.

[iNow]

I guess they are just considering the last few years? The guy was VP for 8 years and I don't remember him saying or doing much about global warming.

 

He was also in Congress since 1976, and has a pretty substantial voting record on environmental issues. It's odd that you don't remember, but here's one link to help refresh your memory.

 

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/initiatives/environment.html

 

 

If you want to dig deeper, and be hypervigilent, you can start here and be sure to use the "Older Votes" button at the bottom of each page. However, it's only 1991 to 1992, but you get the point.

 

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/g000321/votes/

 

 

 

 

Like I said, politically correct parsing and interpretation. Next year it'll go to Jane Doe, single mother of three, struggling to pay her 14% mortgage on her salary as a hairdresser, for exposing the dangers of letting Republicans have power.

 

I don't know, they can do whatever they want I guess. I just think it's a shame to see such a prestigious award reduced to the level of droll partisanship. This suggests to me that it's now little more than a dress-up night for intellectual snobs.

 

Since you seem to feel so strongly about the award and the people to whom it's awarded, what individual do you propose win instead?

[bascule]

I guess they are just considering the last few years? The guy was VP for 8 years and I don't remember him saying or doing much about global warming.

 

Well, there was that Kyoto thing...

[Pangloss]

Since you seem to feel so strongly about the award and the people to whom it's awarded, what individual do you propose win instead?

 

I don't think there's a shortage of hard-working, influential people who lack the Nobel Committee's obvious requirement of being a liberal political activist or having an axe to grind with the Bush administration.

 

How about Bill Gates?

 

Nicholas Negroponte also comes to mind.

 

But of course those guys are politically unacceptable. To the far left, giving a billion dollars away isn't charity, it's guilt amelioration. And don't even get them started on the evils of charging the godawful sum of $100 for a PC! Every child should be given one for free!

[bascule]

Nicholas Negroponte also comes to mind.

 

While the success of OLPC remains to be seen, I'm a big fan of the concept, and of Negroponte in general

[swansont]

Nobel's will states that the Peace Prize goes to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

 

By the strictest reading of that definition Einstein and Nelson Mandela probably shouldn't have won it either. It seems to have become an award broadly for those who work to promote general human welfare, which you could argue Al Gore has done by making a public case for global warming. The real difficulty I see is how effective Gore has really been in making that case to the public.

 

Non sequitur. Einstein won the physics Nobel.

 

Like I said, politically correct parsing and interpretation. Next year it'll go to Jane Doe, single mother of three, struggling to pay her 14% mortgage on her salary as a hairdresser, for exposing the dangers of letting Republicans have power.

 

I don't know, they can do whatever they want I guess. I just think it's a shame to see such a prestigious award reduced to the level of droll partisanship. This suggests to me that it's now little more than a dress-up night for intellectual snobs.

 

I don't think there's a shortage of hard-working, influential people who lack the Nobel Committee's obvious requirement of being a liberal political activist or having an axe to grind with the Bush administration.

 

Ummm, the Nobel is an international award.

[Pangloss]

Um, grinding axes with the Bush administration is an international pasttime.

[john5746]

He was also in Congress since 1976, and has a pretty substantial voting record on environmental issues. It's odd that you don't remember, but here's one link to help refresh your memory.

 

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/initiatives/environment.html

 

Fair enough, I stand corrected. I do remember complaints about his book, but I was trying to remember ad campaigns or something similar to the Indian on the highway. I guess it all got lost in the Lewinsky thing. Clinton's yingyang got in the way of the environment, darn.

 

 

Well, there was that Kyoto thing...

 

Gore signed it, but they didn't try to ratify it.

[CDarwin]

I don't think there's a shortage of hard-working, influential people who lack the Nobel Committee's obvious requirement of being a liberal political activist or having an axe to grind with the Bush administration.[/Quote]

 

Hard working and influential isn't the established standard. It seems to be proactive work for human welfare on an international sort of scale or in a cause with universal human implications (like human rights). Just giving away money doesn't seem to count (which means Nobel probably couldn't have won his own prize ). I think it's probably a bit too early for Negroponte, as his idea hasn't really done much of anything yet.

 

I'm not necessarily arguing with you that the Gore nomination doesn't have political overtones, I just don't think that it completely sinks the legitimacy of the entire Nobel Prize process any more than any of the previous awards have. How about giving the award to the IPCC?

 

Really more of a side note: It's interesting if you look through the prize winners, it's really with the 1946 award that the laurets begin to shift from just "guy who made a treaty or founded an peace-based organization" (closer to Nobel's actual will) to the prize as we would recognize it today.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize

 

Non sequitur. Einstein won the physics Nobel[/Quote]

 

Hmmph. I knew that but I was sure he one the one in Peace too. Mea culpa

 

I was probably thinking of Linus Pauling.

[Sisyphus]

Didn't he already win a Nobel for inventing the Internet?

 

This is OT obviously, but I may as well take this opportunity to set the record straight regarding this little pop culture joke. Al Gore never claimed to "invent the internet." The source of the misunderstanding is this quote:

 

"During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

 

It could be misunderstood if taken out of context (or if you deliberately were trying to caricature him), but in fact it's pretty much accurate.

 

From wikipedia:

 

In response to this controversy, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn wrote a September 29, 2000 article (originally sent via email) which described Gore's contributions to the Internet since the 1970s, including his work on the Gore Bill:

 

"As the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept."

[swansont]

Um, grinding axes with the Bush administration is an international pasttime.

 

And last year's peace prize was axe-grinding in what way? (Ignoring the flawed premise for the moment)

[Pangloss]

And last year's peace prize was axe-grinding in what way? (Ignoring the flawed premise for the moment)

 

Last year's award wasn't explicitly axe-grinding, but it does meet the other criteria I mentioned. From the prize description:

 

"for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work"

 

Pretty obviously politically correct, matching the group's far-left ideology -- something that in my opinion is more important to them than whether it's good for humanity.

[swansont]

"for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work"

 

Pretty obviously politically correct, matching the group's far-left ideology -- something that in my opinion is more important to them than whether it's good for humanity.

 

So unless your position is that helping poor people help themselves is bad for humanity, all of the rest is just opinion, for which you have offered no objective evidence.

 

The problem is that it's something to do with factual events, so you really can't have an opinion about that.

 

Are not nuclear nonproliferation (2006) peace and democracy (2005; I'll concede that conservation is at odds with the Bush administration, though the premise is still flawed), fighting for equal rights (within Iran, yet, 2003) positions consistent with the official stance of the current administration?

[DrDNA]

The bookies appear to have Al Gore in the lead with 5/2 odds :

 

Irena Sendler—9/2

Martti Ahtisaari—5/1

Al Gore—5/2

Sheila Watt-Cloutier—8/1

Stephen Lewis—10/1

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar—10/1

Shih Ming-Teh—10/1

Mahathir Mohamad—14/1

Lidia Yusupova—14/1

Thich Quang Do—14/1

Rajendra Pachauri—18/1

The Rotary Foundation—18/1

Ban Ki-Moon—25/1

Bertie Ahern—80/1

Condoleezza Rice—100/1

Bob Geldof—25/1

Bono—25/1

Tony Blair—100/1

Rush Limbaugh—100/1

Gao Zhisheng—25/1

Angela Merkel—30/1

President George Bush—100/1

Ales Bialatski—25/1

Muhammad Ali/Peter Georgi—40/1

Evo Morales—40/1

Oprah Winfrey—50/1

Sail Training International—50/1

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2175564/nav/tap1/