Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by chronictoker, Oct 13, 2007.
For his work on global warming.
Think he deserves it?
Personally, I'm kind of indifferent.
I dont think he got it solely.. Im pretty sure he shares it with a global warming comittee that he worked with.
Why wouldnt he deserve it?
I dont have a problem with this.
Being a nobel prize winner (partial credit) for this Global warming shit is a far greater accomplishment for himself and humanity than anything George Bush has done lately...that I know of..
Thats exactly what I was thinking when I finished my post.. who else would we prefer to give the award to?
Good for him, he found something he's good at.
We could always give it to someone who doesn't make a politically motivated, factually inaccurate "documentary" that is ultimately designed to make you rich by scaring people into dumping money into your borderline criminal carbon credit schemes.
...Are. You. Fucking. Serious.
This is from wiki
"According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"."
That HACK did NONE of that. He is a hypocritical liar that runs off of cheap powerpoint propaganda.
This upsets me a great deal.
No, because global warming is nothing new, it has been happening since earth's existence: temperature rises, then lowers, rises, lowers. He is just trying to make ways to prevent it, not to research it.
Maybe you should be upset enough to research something a little further than a wikipedia entry. wikipedia is one of the most inaccurate websites on the web.
he shares the prize with a comittee he worked with.
I encourage you all to go read what you can about that committee and its findings. Make a note of the scientists who partook in it and research how many of them actually are scientists by definition, how many of them supported the claims and carried through to the end, and so on.
That is all.
I think he deserves it. He changed the way many people think, me included.
I don't think he was referring to the fact that he did or didn't share but the fact that he he or his committee didn't do anything to deserve a Nobel Peace prize.
As for the wikipedia comment, thats debatable. It can be very accurate if it has sources. If you check those sources you will find much of the same information.
Oh fuck that shit. He's emitted more carbon in the past 10 years than i will in my life. I believe there was a candidate who saved tens of thousands of jews in WWII who lost to this guy.
are you kidding me? his fucking prove isn't even credible and hasn't solved/proved anything, he doesn't deserve it
Penn & Teller Bullshit anyone?!?
Fine, here you go. This is from the Nobel Peace Prize's website.
"Alfred Nobel's will prescribed that the Peace Prize was to be awarded by a committee of five persons chosen by the Norwegian Parliament (Storting) and should go to the person who accomplished "the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the promotion of peace congresses.""
He, and the committee people keep blathering about, did NOTHING to earn it.
I really don't know enough about it to comment, lol.
I haven't seen an inconvenient truth...
I haven't read Gore's books...
but...it just strikes me as odd that he won, and the commitee, of course.
Personally, I'd rather it be someone who was actually involved in establishing peace or equality, which, I don't think is really related to climate change, but I can't deny that it's important work.
Gore claimed the fame on this issue...
He also claimed he invented the internet
I question whether he didn't steal the glory from more deserving parties...
Read a book if you don't believe global warming is a reality.
Milankovitch cycles suggest we should be heading toward a cooling period, however what is happening is the opposite. Continuous data from the Mauna Loa volcano for CO2 levels has proven the overproduction of such gas, biodiversity is vanishing, population growth is bringing about some serious concerns, desertification, salinification and many more problems are the issues we need to look at, and he's done just that.
His views have nothing to do with this, it's plain simple science.
Well I've heard the complete opposite. Now what we do need to worry about is population DRAMATIC increase. But hey, global warming is increasing growth in our rain forests (always look on the bright side! we are all gonna die but the forests with thrive)
I am not saying Global warming does or does not exist. I beleive it remains to be seen if it exists and, if in fact it does exist, i'm not convinced it's our fault.