What scientific breakthrough did he make?
The Peace Prize is the only Nobel prize that doesn't have a specific criteria of what qualifies an action for it.
Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize
- Thread starter #juan
- Start date
What scientific breakthrough did he make?
The Peace Prize is the only Nobel prize that doesn't have a specific criteria of what qualifies an action for it.
Al Gore= Jumbo Green Wash. Go ahead rub his belly and vote for him. The perpetually dumb still don't get how much the game is rigged.
It's vague but generally specific and I posted this earlier in the thread:
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".
Gore got his:
"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"
Regardless. Some agree with him being awarded it, others do not. I'm the later and in the minority. Such is life.
Almost all, with the exception of a few die-hard hold-outs, will agree that the globe is warming. There can be no argument that mankind has dumped trillions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere. C02 levels are well documented. The first big polluters were the big, coal-fired steam engines that heralded the start of the industrial revolution. If we agree that those coal-fired steam engines spewed out a lot of C02, we are halfway there. Burning coal doesn't just produce C02. It also produces at the same time, copious quantities of other greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide which, as a greenhouse gas, is many times worse than C02, Coal mines also give off methane, which is also many times worse as a greenhouse gas than C02. Moving into more modern times, coal-fired electricity generating plants are everywhere. Internal combustion engines in cars and trucks also produce large quantities of assorted greenhouse gases, not to mention the fossil fuels we burn to heat our homes. Water vapour is also a very effective greenhouse gas. Every car and truck, every fossil fuel burning furnace, and God knows how many industrial applications give off trillions of tons of water vapour.
Still, people say," I know that the Earth is warming, but we don't know if man is causing it".
Give me a break....:roll:
Still, people say," I know that the Earth is warming, but we don't know if man is causing it".
Give me a break....:roll:
The earth is warming. It's not really up for debate. I for one believe that.
But, the fact that I disagree with Gore's selection in recieving a prize for peace has nothing at all to do with global warming.
The Mother Teresa that was awarded the Nobel prize for peace "for work undertaken in the struggle to overcome poverty and distress, which also constitute a threat to peace."?
You must out of your mind to connect that great woman to Gore.
She politely declined the 'big awards ceremony' and donated her award money to the poor.
Yeah but some people like yourself are all uppity about the messenger to the point that the message gets lost. So about the only person it seems can address global problems are those who have no dirt to dig up and side track the issue with. The usual dirty tricks. No wonder there are only the worst kind rattling around the halls of power.
In this case the messenger is a fraud. As you've said, he'll be running for office soon. Coincidence? Of course. :lol:
The scientists deserve the prize, not this clown. ;-)
Was there someone else making movies and giving talks about global warming? I must have missed them. The IPCC was being attacked from all sides by the deniers, and so was Gore. Whatever his real or imagined faults, Gore got the message out. For that we owe him.
For those of you being so self-righteous about Gore, get over yourselves.
If you're Canadian, the Oil sands require three times the energy to produce a barrel of crude than average and use vast amounts of water. Communities in the area are experiencing an alarming increase in cancer due to water pollution.
One ore truck on the sands is going to use more energy and produce more greenhouse gas than all of Gores activities. All so you can drive around whenever you want.
If you're American, all those thousands of ships, planes, tanks, APCs and trucks Bush and Cheney have in action in Iraq to control the oil fields there use more energy and produce more greenhouse gas than Gore does in a year in a fraction of a second. While killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and putting crude prices through the roof creating obscence profits for the oil industry.
Bush and Harpers so called plans to deal with Global Warming aren't going to do a thing to solve the problem because both are focused on protecting the industry that's causing most of the problem. It would be like putting Big Tobacco in charge of the health care system and FDA.
If you're Canadian, the Oil sands require three times the energy to produce a barrel of crude than average and use vast amounts of water. Communities in the area are experiencing an alarming increase in cancer due to water pollution.
One ore truck on the sands is going to use more energy and produce more greenhouse gas than all of Gores activities. All so you can drive around whenever you want.
If you're American, all those thousands of ships, planes, tanks, APCs and trucks Bush and Cheney have in action in Iraq to control the oil fields there use more energy and produce more greenhouse gas than Gore does in a year in a fraction of a second. While killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and putting crude prices through the roof creating obscence profits for the oil industry.
Bush and Harpers so called plans to deal with Global Warming aren't going to do a thing to solve the problem because both are focused on protecting the industry that's causing most of the problem. It would be like putting Big Tobacco in charge of the health care system and FDA.
I think the attacks are due to their theory of why exactly, the earth is warming.
Suzuki or Attenborough (both have more documentaries than this 'movie') could have delivered a better message than the carbon-enemy that is Albert Gore. Message or not, he's just a figurehead. Still unworthy in my eyes. Most disagree with me and that's fine.
Theory? I don't think it is a theory any more. Why the Earth is warming should be obvious to anyone.
NO!
Ya that's it, I want to just drive all over hells half acre, for no reason...I don't need to drive for work, I don't need diesel for my generators...I can run them on Gores hotair, or yours, whichever you prefer.
Turning into the Much Music Video Awards, or that ilk it seems.
And the best new laureate goes TO......
Inconvenient Corrections
[SIZE=+2]Al Gore's Wacky Facts[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]By ROBERT BRYCE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+3]F[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]acts don't matter. Only spin matters. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]That's the main conclusion to be drawn from the fact that Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last week.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]My complaint has nothing to do with the science of global warming or whether or not the current warming of the planet is due solely to manmade causes. Rather, it's this: Gore won the prize even though his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, concludes with one of the most blatantly absurd statements ever committed to film.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Just before the final credits, in a segment that advises viewers as to what they might do to help slow global warming, the following line appears onscreen: "In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero."ù[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Again, the point is not whether or not I agree with Gore's view on warming. Instead the objection stems from this obvious point: We humans breathe. And in doing so, we emit carbon dioxide. The idea that we can somehow negate the gas that results from our respiration--through the legerdemain of carbon credits, or compact fluorescent light bulbs, or fleets of Toyota Priuses is simply not possible. And the fact that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie--including, particularly, Gore himself--paused to consider the veracity of their declaration leaves me agog.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Imagine any other documentary--on virtually any subject--that concluded with a line that declared something like, "By the way, the world is flat." The producers and everyone associated with the movie would be the laughing stock of the modern world. And yet, when it comes to the claim that you can "reduce your carbon emissions to zero," Gore has been given a free pass. The obvious conclusion: facts and science don't really matter. What matters, it appears, is how dedicated you are to the cause of publicizing what Gore calls the "climate crisis."
And thus, Gore's evangelism, not his facts, earned him the Nobel. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Which brings me to my other objection: It's fine to say we have a problem with climate change. Perhaps we do. So what's the solution? Put another way, given that the Nobel committee--as well as lots of politicians and activists--agree with Gore that carbon dioxide is bad, then what? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The world economy (and most living beings) depends, one way or another, on emitting carbon dioxide. And the overwhelming majority of those carbon dioxide releases are a byproduct of our consumption of fossil fuels. Those fuels allow us to be mobile, feed ourselves, stay warm, and generally improve our living standards. As Decartes might have put it: we are, therefore we emit carbon dioxide. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]And yet Gore offers no viable alternatives to the fossil fuels that we depend upon to sustain our civilization. What are his suggestions? Well, at the end of an An Inconvenient Truth, Gore and his fellow producers provide yet more proof that facts don't matter. In the same section that advises viewers about what they can do to fight global warming, Gore conflates the issues of global warming and energy independence by suggesting that they encourage the biggest scam of the modern era: ethanol. The text that appears on the screen advises viewers: "Reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help farmers grow alcohol fuels."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Even a modicum of research into the issue would have shown Gore and his pals that alcohol fuels--even with massive subsidies--are not going to make a significant dent in the world's fossil fuel habit. In fact, ethanol and biofuels in general may make global warming worse. A recent study led by Nobel prize-winning chemist P. J. Crutzen, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, found that biofuels made from rapeseed and corn release about twice as much nitrous oxide as was previously thought. Nitrous oxide is nearly 300 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The report's co-author, Keith Smith, from the University of Edinburgh, summed up the study, saying growing biofuels "is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Last year, Gore told Grist magazine that cellulosic ethanol would "be a huge new source of energy, particularly for the transportation sector. You're going to see it all over the place. You're going to see a lot more flex-fuel vehicles. You're going to see new processes that utilize waste as the source of energy, so there's no petroleum consumed in the process."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]But cellulosic ethanol is decades away from being viable. That's not the opinion of Big Oil, instead it comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Last month, the agency's Economic Research Service reported that while cellulose-based fuels hold "some longer-term promise, much research is needed to make it commercially economical and expand beyond the 250-million-gallon minimum specified for 2013 in the Energy Policy Act of 2005." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Just for the sake of argument, let's assume the USDA is wrong. And let's further assume that given enough federal subsidies, cellulosic ethanol has a big technical breakthrough and expands at the same rate as what we've seen with corn-based ethanol. It took more than two decades of fat subsidies before the corn ethanol sector was able to produce 5 billion gallons of ethanol per year. And today, that industry provides only about 1 percent of America's oil needs while gobbling up about 14 percent of the country's corn crop. If cellulosic ethanol follows that same trajectory as what we've seen with corn ethanol, it will be 2030 or so before cellulosic ethanol will be able to supply just 1 percent of America's oil needs. So the key question Gore must answer is this: does a 1 percent share of the oil market qualify cellulosic ethanol as "huge"?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Gore advocates solar power and wind power as alternatives to fossil fuels. That's fine. What are the facts?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Well, according to projections from the Energy Information Administration, both solar and wind will add lots of new generation capacity over the next two decades, but by 2030, the combined output of both sources will only total about 70 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. That's a miniscule amount when compared to the expected annual electricity generation from coal (3,351 billion kWh) per year, nuclear (871 billion kWh) and natural gas (1,003 kWh). [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The problem is that wind and solar are both incurably intermittent. The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. That means--unless we have a huge technological breakthrough that permits large-scale electricity storage or we are willing to live with frequent blackouts and brownouts--we are going to continue relying on the same power plants that we have now, and they use coal, uranium and natural gas. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Those are the facts. It's unfortunate that the Nobel committee doesn't seem to care about them.[/SIZE]
http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce10162007.html
Once a dirty lying politician now the worlds great saviour :lol:C'mon you all really believe this crap 8OGores as phoney as a 3 dollar bill and in it for the FAME AND MONEY bloody glory hound if he had any stones would have challenged Bush but no walked away with his tail between his legs:lol:
[SIZE=+2]Al Gore's Wacky Facts[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]By ROBERT BRYCE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+3]F[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]acts don't matter. Only spin matters. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]That's the main conclusion to be drawn from the fact that Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last week.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]My complaint has nothing to do with the science of global warming or whether or not the current warming of the planet is due solely to manmade causes. Rather, it's this: Gore won the prize even though his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, concludes with one of the most blatantly absurd statements ever committed to film.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Just before the final credits, in a segment that advises viewers as to what they might do to help slow global warming, the following line appears onscreen: "In fact, you can even reduce your carbon emissions to zero."ù[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Again, the point is not whether or not I agree with Gore's view on warming. Instead the objection stems from this obvious point: We humans breathe. And in doing so, we emit carbon dioxide. The idea that we can somehow negate the gas that results from our respiration--through the legerdemain of carbon credits, or compact fluorescent light bulbs, or fleets of Toyota Priuses is simply not possible. And the fact that none of the dozens of smart people involved in the production of the movie--including, particularly, Gore himself--paused to consider the veracity of their declaration leaves me agog.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Imagine any other documentary--on virtually any subject--that concluded with a line that declared something like, "By the way, the world is flat." The producers and everyone associated with the movie would be the laughing stock of the modern world. And yet, when it comes to the claim that you can "reduce your carbon emissions to zero," Gore has been given a free pass. The obvious conclusion: facts and science don't really matter. What matters, it appears, is how dedicated you are to the cause of publicizing what Gore calls the "climate crisis."
And thus, Gore's evangelism, not his facts, earned him the Nobel. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Which brings me to my other objection: It's fine to say we have a problem with climate change. Perhaps we do. So what's the solution? Put another way, given that the Nobel committee--as well as lots of politicians and activists--agree with Gore that carbon dioxide is bad, then what? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The world economy (and most living beings) depends, one way or another, on emitting carbon dioxide. And the overwhelming majority of those carbon dioxide releases are a byproduct of our consumption of fossil fuels. Those fuels allow us to be mobile, feed ourselves, stay warm, and generally improve our living standards. As Decartes might have put it: we are, therefore we emit carbon dioxide. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]And yet Gore offers no viable alternatives to the fossil fuels that we depend upon to sustain our civilization. What are his suggestions? Well, at the end of an An Inconvenient Truth, Gore and his fellow producers provide yet more proof that facts don't matter. In the same section that advises viewers about what they can do to fight global warming, Gore conflates the issues of global warming and energy independence by suggesting that they encourage the biggest scam of the modern era: ethanol. The text that appears on the screen advises viewers: "Reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help farmers grow alcohol fuels."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Even a modicum of research into the issue would have shown Gore and his pals that alcohol fuels--even with massive subsidies--are not going to make a significant dent in the world's fossil fuel habit. In fact, ethanol and biofuels in general may make global warming worse. A recent study led by Nobel prize-winning chemist P. J. Crutzen, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, found that biofuels made from rapeseed and corn release about twice as much nitrous oxide as was previously thought. Nitrous oxide is nearly 300 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The report's co-author, Keith Smith, from the University of Edinburgh, summed up the study, saying growing biofuels "is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Last year, Gore told Grist magazine that cellulosic ethanol would "be a huge new source of energy, particularly for the transportation sector. You're going to see it all over the place. You're going to see a lot more flex-fuel vehicles. You're going to see new processes that utilize waste as the source of energy, so there's no petroleum consumed in the process."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]But cellulosic ethanol is decades away from being viable. That's not the opinion of Big Oil, instead it comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Last month, the agency's Economic Research Service reported that while cellulose-based fuels hold "some longer-term promise, much research is needed to make it commercially economical and expand beyond the 250-million-gallon minimum specified for 2013 in the Energy Policy Act of 2005." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Just for the sake of argument, let's assume the USDA is wrong. And let's further assume that given enough federal subsidies, cellulosic ethanol has a big technical breakthrough and expands at the same rate as what we've seen with corn-based ethanol. It took more than two decades of fat subsidies before the corn ethanol sector was able to produce 5 billion gallons of ethanol per year. And today, that industry provides only about 1 percent of America's oil needs while gobbling up about 14 percent of the country's corn crop. If cellulosic ethanol follows that same trajectory as what we've seen with corn ethanol, it will be 2030 or so before cellulosic ethanol will be able to supply just 1 percent of America's oil needs. So the key question Gore must answer is this: does a 1 percent share of the oil market qualify cellulosic ethanol as "huge"?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Gore advocates solar power and wind power as alternatives to fossil fuels. That's fine. What are the facts?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Well, according to projections from the Energy Information Administration, both solar and wind will add lots of new generation capacity over the next two decades, but by 2030, the combined output of both sources will only total about 70 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. That's a miniscule amount when compared to the expected annual electricity generation from coal (3,351 billion kWh) per year, nuclear (871 billion kWh) and natural gas (1,003 kWh). [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The problem is that wind and solar are both incurably intermittent. The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. That means--unless we have a huge technological breakthrough that permits large-scale electricity storage or we are willing to live with frequent blackouts and brownouts--we are going to continue relying on the same power plants that we have now, and they use coal, uranium and natural gas. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Those are the facts. It's unfortunate that the Nobel committee doesn't seem to care about them.[/SIZE]
http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce10162007.html
Once a dirty lying politician now the worlds great saviour :lol:C'mon you all really believe this crap 8OGores as phoney as a 3 dollar bill and in it for the FAME AND MONEY bloody glory hound if he had any stones would have challenged Bush but no walked away with his tail between his legs:lol:
Yeah but that's like saying that I don't got to the woods and fish in the streams. Fill it with garbage for all I care. Just don't bother me with tree hugger crap.
It'a all just a load of bs.
Some people want to keep the supply going and will do so at any cost. Without the supply we have to change. If we change we don't need the oil anymore. The demand goes, so does the money.
But what is it that you consider Gore to be saying that's hot air?
I'm not sure I get your analogy.
Fair enough, but if you examine the quote I was replying to, I was replying to someone that was addressing us, in here, or so it seemed.
Pretty much the whole schpeil...
Provable science aside.
My personal opinion of Gore's motives are that he is just an opertunist, a conman, and has really very little care for the environment.
I have my reasons, the most glaring would be the mine lease, he seems to deflect all questions of, on his land.
That to me, that says a whole lot about the man...if the environment was truly his greatest concern and not money, he could, should, must, break said lease and force the operator to clean up the mess. Not to mention all the C02 a mining operation must be producing.
You pickin' up what I'm layin' down?