Al Gore and UN council win Nobel Peace Prize?

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: MisterJackson
I think it's all a joke. Can anything further inflate this guys ego and his skewed view of worth to the world?

Well since people idolize celebrities in this country...he wants to stay a "celebrity" so that he can continue to feel important!

Who the fark cares about what rich celebrities do?

 

[lokiju]

What a joke.

I guess Michael Moore will get one next year?

 

[ElFenix]

excelsior!

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: lokiju
What a joke.

I guess Michael Moore will get one next year?

Nah. Ahmadenijad or Hugo Chavez. Maybe they'll give one to Che posthumously?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Mucho
Deservedly so, no one has done more to bring awareness of Global Warming more than him.

Correct that. Global warming is SO january. It's now called 'climate change'.

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: lokiju
What a joke.

I guess Michael Moore will get one next year?

Nah. Ahmadenijad or Hugo Chavez. Maybe they'll give one to Che posthumously?

Maybe that Ahmadenijad's plan all along. Create a global problem and then "solve" it, thus making him look good (a la when Arafat, Peres, and Rabin won it in 1994).

 

[Delita]

There was a Bloomberg article about him being at the top of the list the other day. Im personally surprised about it. I don't think that he really deserved it. I also found this article pretty interesting as well.

 

[Slick5150]

Ok, let's say you don't agree with the 99.9% of scientists who agree that climate change is occuring and that human activity is at least partially responsible for it, don't you still think its a good idea to conserve energy use and explore alternative energy sources that don't rely on us buying fuel sources from overseas?

Even beyond the environmental concerns, there's a real economic opportunity for the US to invest in these new technologies. But, of course, most people can't look past the headlines of stories and learn to understand the details.

Sad.

 

[Chryso]

The last climate change worked out pretty good, except for the mammoth.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Ok, let's say you don't agree with the 99.9% of scientists who agree that climate change is occuring and that human activity is at least partially responsible for it, don't you still think its a good idea to conserve energy use and explore alternative energy sources that don't rely on us buying fuel sources from overseas?

Even beyond the environmental concerns, there's a real economic opportunity for the US to invest in these new technologies. But, of course, most people can't look past the headlines of stories and learn to understand the details.

Sad.

It all boils down to "ZOOMG!!!!! I HAVE TO CHANGE???? NO WAI!!!!!!!"

I'm actually getting into the conservation thing. It's a good feeling having all 42 light bulbs in my house replaced with energy efficient ones, knowing I turn off any device not being used, and using alternative power (solar mostly) to power some lights and devices. If they get cheap enough, I might even get those solar shingles for my roof.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Jawo
Seriously WTF?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI.../nobel.gore/index.html

FYI: there is a P&N thread, I just wanted to inform those who do not venture there of this news.

what a joke. :laugh:

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Ok, let's say you don't agree with the 99.9% of scientists who agree that climate change is occuring and that human activity is at least partially responsible for it, don't you still think its a good idea to conserve energy use and explore alternative energy sources that don't rely on us buying fuel sources from overseas?

Yes. I think it is safe to say that everyone is for a cleaner environment, more efficient fuels sources, etc etc. Do we need crushing government regulations that drag down the economy to get there? No. Do we need 'carbon taxes' or even more gas taxes to punish consumers (taxes that actually hurt the poor)? No.

Do you realize that we'd have to shut down every energy plant east of the Mississippi to reach the output requirements of Kyoto? That's unrealistic. Especially when NIMBYism and BANANAism is running rampant preventing the building of environmentally friendly energy sources like nuclear power plants and wind mill farms.

 

[Miramonti]

This is politics.
This is news.

This is P&N imo.

 

[PlatinumGold]

is Gore the new Jimmy Carter?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Ok, let's say you don't agree with the 99.9% of scientists who agree that climate change is occuring and that human activity is at least partially responsible for it, don't you still think its a good idea to conserve energy use and explore alternative energy sources that don't rely on us buying fuel sources from overseas?

Even beyond the environmental concerns, there's a real economic opportunity for the US to invest in these new technologies. But, of course, most people can't look past the headlines of stories and learn to understand the details.

Sad.

Yep. With all the out sourcing and oil porblems we need to not only look for more energy sources but also clean ones. Ifthe US steps up we can be the king of that type of enery and that would lead our next big economy boom like the techsector did for the 90s.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Al brought a lot of awareness to the issue and now he's a rock star!

Actually, that's it. It's turning out he was right about nearly every major issue in the last decade, and people are starting to say "Hey....exactly why isn't this guy president???" Considering the other candidates, I think he was the right choice.

Yeah, well, 48.38% of the country thought so 7 years ago too...

(as compared to 47.87% thaty the "winner" got)

This IS P&N...

Well maybe if Gore wasn't such a stiff eight years ago he would have been elected! Not to mention that he is a poster child of "do what I say not what I do." Snopes Article

What that chain letter doesn't state is Gore gets the majority of his electricity from green sources. Do some other research besides a Snopes chain letter before you start trashing the guy. He really is trying to make a difference for everybody's good. He has no plans to run for any political office, he dontates profits he makes from his campaign- what more you want the guy to do? Crucify himself on TV or something?

Snopes article on Gore's home specifically, http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Ok, let's say you don't agree with the 99.9% of scientists who agree that climate change is occuring and that human activity is at least partially responsible for it, don't you still think its a good idea to conserve energy use and explore alternative energy sources that don't rely on us buying fuel sources from overseas?

Even beyond the environmental concerns, there's a real economic opportunity for the US to invest in these new technologies. But, of course, most people can't look past the headlines of stories and learn to understand the details.

Sad.

Yep. With all the out sourcing and oil porblems we need to not only look for more energy sources but also clean ones. Ifthe US steps up we can be the king of that type of enery and that would lead our next big economy boom like the techsector did for the 90s.

I can totally agree with you on this point. We could have had energy efficient cars by now, but the Clinton / Bush administrations were not interested (Gore included). I've done some pretty amazing research on how close we are to setting up a hydrogen economy. It really is the future, not only is it safer than petrol, but we need the oil for plastics! I would love to share my research with anyone who asks about it.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Ok, let's say you don't agree with the 99.9% of scientists who agree that climate change is occuring and that human activity is at least partially responsible for it, don't you still think its a good idea to conserve energy use and explore alternative energy sources that don't rely on us buying fuel sources from overseas?

Yes. I think it is safe to say that everyone is for a cleaner environment, more efficient fuels sources, etc etc. Do we need crushing government regulations that drag down the economy to get there? No. Do we need 'carbon taxes' or even more gas taxes to punish consumers (taxes that actually hurt the poor)? No.

Do you realize that we'd have to shut down every energy plant east of the Mississippi to reach the output requirements of Kyoto? That's unrealistic. Especially when NIMBYism and BANANAism is running rampant preventing the building of environmentally friendly energy sources like nuclear power plants and wind mill farms.

Ok, well #1 your information about how to meet the Kyoto requirements are completely wrong. But regardless, sometimes it is the job of government to give industry, and yes sometimes the public, a kick in the ass to get them moving. Should the government not have safety regulations on cars? Should we just leave that to the auto industry and hope that they don't revert back to designing the death traps that they used to? How is this different? This is telling industry that the technology exists to do business cleaner and its time that we start looking at using it instead of sticking our heads in the sand and pretending the problem doesn't exist.

I'm not the biggest fan of Al Gore in the world, and I do think that this issue could have been moved forward much more than it was during the Clinton/Gore years, but I give him a lot of credit on this issue now and he's absolutely right that energy efficiency and alternative/renewable energy should not be a political issue, but business groups continue to ensure it stays one because they don't want to have to change the status quo because in business, change is scary.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Ok, let's say you don't agree with the 99.9% of scientists who agree that climate change is occuring and that human activity is at least partially responsible for it, don't you still think its a good idea to conserve energy use and explore alternative energy sources that don't rely on us buying fuel sources from overseas?

Even beyond the environmental concerns, there's a real economic opportunity for the US to invest in these new technologies. But, of course, most people can't look past the headlines of stories and learn to understand the details.

Sad.

Your statistic of "99.9% of scientists" has about as much validity as Hansen's. It is a biased model and not a scientific fact. It does not stand up to real science.

All the other points are on, but if we went with the Gorbal Warming crowd, there would be no economic opportunity. The "environmentalist" involved hate capitalism and economic freedom. They would never allow the US to continue to master new technologies. That is not their goal. They want to keep the trees equal by hatchet, ax, and saw (your Rush reference of the day). The unintended consequence would increase 3rd world poverty too because it creates barriers to entry into a global economy. All this based on the false assumption that CO2 is the problem.

//Join SOTS! Stamp Out The Sun = because any amount of radition is harmful and it creates global warming!

 

[mugs]

Regardless of feelings on global warming... what does it have to do with peace?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Ok, let's say you don't agree with the 99.9% of scientists who agree that climate change is occuring and that human activity is at least partially responsible for it, don't you still think its a good idea to conserve energy use and explore alternative energy sources that don't rely on us buying fuel sources from overseas?

Yes. I think it is safe to say that everyone is for a cleaner environment, more efficient fuels sources, etc etc. Do we need crushing government regulations that drag down the economy to get there? No. Do we need 'carbon taxes' or even more gas taxes to punish consumers (taxes that actually hurt the poor)? No.

Do you realize that we'd have to shut down every energy plant east of the Mississippi to reach the output requirements of Kyoto? That's unrealistic. Especially when NIMBYism and BANANAism is running rampant preventing the building of environmentally friendly energy sources like nuclear power plants and wind mill farms.

Ok, well #1 your information about how to meet the Kyoto requirements are completely wrong. But regardless, sometimes it is the job of government to give industry, and yes sometimes the public, a kick in the ass to get them moving. Should the government not have safety regulations on cars? Should we just leave that to the auto industry and hope that they don't revert back to designing the death traps that they used to? How is this different? This is telling industry that the technology exists to do business cleaner and its time that we start looking at using it instead of sticking our heads in the sand and pretending the problem doesn't exist.

No, it is not the government's job to punish industry and the public with excessive regulations and taxes. If they want to encourage people to move to using more efficient energy, etc then they need to provide incentives. Most of the recent legislation I've seen proposed (specifically by Dingell) is heavy on the punishment. Carbon caps and taxes is sure path to failure.

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Ok, let's say you don't agree with the 99.9% of scientists who agree that climate change is occuring and that human activity is at least partially responsible for it, don't you still think its a good idea to conserve energy use and explore alternative energy sources that don't rely on us buying fuel sources from overseas?

Even beyond the environmental concerns, there's a real economic opportunity for the US to invest in these new technologies. But, of course, most people can't look past the headlines of stories and learn to understand the details.

Sad.

Your statistic of "99.9% of scientists" has about as much validity as Hansen's. It is a biased model and not a scientific fact. It does not stand up to real science.

All the other points are on, but if we went with the Gorbal Warming crowd, there would be no economic opportunity. The "environmentalist" involved hate capitalism and economic freedom. They would never allow the US to continue to master new technologies. That is not their goal. They want to keep the trees equal by hatchet, ax, and saw (your Rush reference of the day). The unintended consequence would increase 3rd world poverty too because it creates barriers to entry into a global economy. All this based on the false assumption that CO2 is the problem.

//Join SOTS! Stamp Out The Sun = because any amount of radition is harmful and it creates global warming!

Ha ha ha...good points! I have always though that a "vegan enviromentalist" is an oxymoran, what local fresh produce are they going to eat in the winter

 

[maddogchen]

guess they didn't have any real candidtates so they randomly picked some.

nobel prize is such a joke anyway. They gave some prizes to some professors for economics, a few years later everyone that followed them lost a ton of money. suckers!

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Ok, let's say you don't agree with the 99.9% of scientists who agree that climate change is occuring and that human activity is at least partially responsible for it, don't you still think its a good idea to conserve energy use and explore alternative energy sources that don't rely on us buying fuel sources from overseas?

Yes. I think it is safe to say that everyone is for a cleaner environment, more efficient fuels sources, etc etc. Do we need crushing government regulations that drag down the economy to get there? No. Do we need 'carbon taxes' or even more gas taxes to punish consumers (taxes that actually hurt the poor)? No.

Do you realize that we'd have to shut down every energy plant east of the Mississippi to reach the output requirements of Kyoto? That's unrealistic. Especially when NIMBYism and BANANAism is running rampant preventing the building of environmentally friendly energy sources like nuclear power plants and wind mill farms.

Ok, well #1 your information about how to meet the Kyoto requirements are completely wrong. But regardless, sometimes it is the job of government to give industry, and yes sometimes the public, a kick in the ass to get them moving. Should the government not have safety regulations on cars? Should we just leave that to the auto industry and hope that they don't revert back to designing the death traps that they used to? How is this different? This is telling industry that the technology exists to do business cleaner and its time that we start looking at using it instead of sticking our heads in the sand and pretending the problem doesn't exist.

No, it is not the government's job to punish industry and the public with excessive regulations and taxes. If they want to encourage people to move to using more efficient energy, etc then they need to provide incentives. Most of the recent legislation I've seen proposed (specifically by Dingell) is heavy on the punishment. Carbon caps and taxes is sure path to failure.

Taxes are incentives... disincentives...

 

[Delita]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Ok, let's say you don't agree with the 99.9% of scientists who agree that climate change is occuring and that human activity is at least partially responsible for it, don't you still think its a good idea to conserve energy use and explore alternative energy sources that don't rely on us buying fuel sources from overseas?

Yes. I think it is safe to say that everyone is for a cleaner environment, more efficient fuels sources, etc etc. Do we need crushing government regulations that drag down the economy to get there? No. Do we need 'carbon taxes' or even more gas taxes to punish consumers (taxes that actually hurt the poor)? No.

Do you realize that we'd have to shut down every energy plant east of the Mississippi to reach the output requirements of Kyoto? That's unrealistic. Especially when NIMBYism and BANANAism is running rampant preventing the building of environmentally friendly energy sources like nuclear power plants and wind mill farms.

Ok, well #1 your information about how to meet the Kyoto requirements are completely wrong. But regardless, sometimes it is the job of government to give industry, and yes sometimes the public, a kick in the ass to get them moving. Should the government not have safety regulations on cars? Should we just leave that to the auto industry and hope that they don't revert back to designing the death traps that they used to? How is this different? This is telling industry that the technology exists to do business cleaner and its time that we start looking at using it instead of sticking our heads in the sand and pretending the problem doesn't exist.

I'm not the biggest fan of Al Gore in the world, and I do think that this issue could have been moved forward much more than it was during the Clinton/Gore years, but I give him a lot of credit on this issue now and he's absolutely right that energy efficiency and alternative/renewable energy should not be a political issue, but business groups continue to ensure it stays one because they don't want to have to change the status quo because in business, change is scary.

I think you are entirely wrong on this issue...in business constant change is a requirement. If you don't change then you are going to be left behind. However, getting the government to change...now that is scary.