Oh, please! And I suppose next in line is Leonardo DiCaprio? The Nobel prize means about as much as an Oscar. So, I guess, good for Gore
"The Nobel prize means about as much as an Oscar."Ah yes, everything is worthless until a conservative wins. Nice argument there.
Suck those lemons, Emily!
"Ah yes, everything is worthless until a conservative wins. Nice argument there."Conservative? You lose. Not everything is about L vs. C. I have had Physics professors more engaging than Gore.
"Conservative? You lose. Not everything is about L vs. C.I have had Physics professors more engaging than Gore."How does the lower statement reinforce the upper? You don't have to be engaging to wing a Nobel Prize...So unless you have a legitimate complaint (maybe another nominee was more deserving in your opinion?), you can go home.
wing? Freudian slip? It's supposed to be win.
Of course, it is all P.R. Nothing to do with facts and understanding about politics and regional conflicts are developing already - threats to peace and human rights.I have a friend who won the Nobel Peace Prize, it is wierdly humbling to visit his office, and see diplomas and certificates and then the Nobel Prize in there.Yeah, what a sorry lot, hey wing-fucking-nuts?http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/index.htmlSee 1985All these character and personality assaults against the great people in the promotion of humanitarianism, they are so pathetically unsophisticated and childish and sad because the people that make these types of criticism deeply show how trite and undeveloped they are, both in maturity and ability to grasp important concepts.Sometimes I just get so frustrated, CC, as I know you do, and the only outlet is contempt and ridicule for such painfully stunted individuals.The best thing to say about this award this year is, I guess, the world has already judged the IPCC and Al Gore and in spite of your pathetic whining about injustices, it is too late, and you, were and contiinue to be, wrong about reality.grown ups run international organizations, and they make grown up decisians.Na-na-nana, (laughs at self). To bad, little pussies, there is nothing you can do about Gore's and the IPCC's standing internationally.Nothing, so STFU already.
Emily said... I have had Physics professors more engaging than Gore.Hah ha hah! And I have many fruit-loops, including the chair of astronomy at east coast IVY league school.You want to play 'who's smarter'?Let's see what you know, not hears useless claims about physics prof's. Many learned people are fucking stupid - big deal.Who you know, what you are, idle insinuations, let's do it for real and see what you are made of.I will tell you right now that I can easily ridicule you, starting with your comment.So, you spent time with Al Gore? How do you know if he is engaging, what did you talk about?Your turn.
Heh. Next year, the prize goes to Cindy Sheehan. Suck it up, wingnuts. *evil chuckle.*
Conservative? You lose. Not everything is about L vs. C. I'm sure that, with an ignorant twit such as you, that's true.
http://gayandright.blogspot.com/2007/10/inconvenient-peace-prize.htmlI hope this is not cut off. :)
See, this is why I do NOT want to see him run for president of the U.S. If he became president, he'd be effectively chained, having to spend all his time defending against attacks from the wingnuts.Gore had had such an immense influence, the last few years, and prompted huge changes all over the world. It happened precisely because his hands weren't tied. He was much more free to speak than if he'd been speaking from the White House.So I hope he stays out of the race and continues doing great work. Drive the wingnuts mad, because they can't disgrace him like they did Clinton.
Ah hahahahahahWord Verification is making me type "pysqoo".That is all.
Settling down, girlie....ewps. Pardon my sexism.
Emily: bizarrely (and shamefully) the right decided to make science an "L vs. C issue". And when you start equating Nobels and Oscars, we lump you into the crazy camp.Wayne: Lomborg, true to form, distorts in paragraph one, misleads in paragraph two, and spends the rest of the 'editorial' arguing (without substantiation) the false dilemma that we cannot simultaneously afford Kyoto and mosquito nets.Once again, your trusted sources betray you by writing crap.
Emily: bizarrely (and shamefully) the right decided to make science an "L vs. C issue". And when you start equating Nobels and Oscars, we lump you into the crazy camp.Emily wasn't even thinking along those lines. She just, like...totally hated...that slut, Gore.Most Americans never leave high school.
"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" ... from nobelprize.orgThe general tone of the comments here is supportive of Gore's award, so I assume that someone here will be able to explain how his work promotes peace? Not being of the leftward persuasion, I admit I do not see the connection.
The short answer, Fergus, is that internationally cooperative work to further understanding of a global problem helps to bring people together and reduce tension ("fraternity between the nations").If that's too "leftward", consider that the Nobel has previously been awarded to several candidates for humanitarian work (e.g. Mother Teresa, Shirin Ebadi).Were Gore and the IPCC the best candidates? I don't know, I haven't looked at the list of nominees.
But since the IPCC was set up by the WMO and UNEP (environmental wing of UN), isn't this really giving an award to itself?
The Norwegian Nobel Committee is entirely separate from the UN, and predates it by several decades.
Oops, my bad. Lost track of the Nobel Committee in all those acronyms. Thanks adam.
Post a Comment