SFR: Al Gore's mistakes?


New Member
Nah, don't blame Al Gore...blame the Nobel Prize committee. From James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal.

One reason for this may be that the Norwegian Nobel Committee has had reason to be disappointed in the results when it has given awards to more traditional peacemakers.

* In 1994, the Nobel Peace Prize notoriously went to Yasser Arafat (along with Israel's prime and foreign ministers) for signing the Oslo accords--which, far from establishing peace, enabled Arafat to set up a terror statelet in the West Bank and Gaza.

* In 1973, the Nobel went to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam's Lu Duc Tho for negotiating the Vietnam peace accord--which, far from establishing peace, led to conquest, repression and mass murder in Indochina.

* In 1926, 1930 and 1931 the Nobel Peace Prize went to men involved in the Briand-Kellogg Pact, which "outlawed war." By 1939 it was clear how well that was working out.

When the Nobel Peace Prize was established more than a century ago, wars were largely fought between traditional nation-states over material interests. But the 20th century saw the rise of a series of aggressive ideologies--communism, Nazism, radical Islam--that render old-fashioned notions of war and peace quaint. Determined ideologues cannot be appeased; peace through strength is the only alternative to war.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee rejects strength as well as war--hence its failure to award a Nobel to Ronald Reagan for winning the Cold War (Mikhail Gorbachev got one for losing, in 1990), or, say, to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for averting armed international conflict in Europe for half a century after World War II.

But why Al Gore? Here's one explanation: Global warmism is an all-encompassing ideology, but one that, unlike communism, Nazism and radical Islam, has yet to inspire anyone to take up arms. Maybe in defining "peace" the Norwegians have simply decided not to set their sights too high.


the Menehune stole my beer
In reading the posts above, I'm struck by how many of my fellow flyfishers fall into one of two camps when it comes to Al Gore and 'An Inconvenient Truth': those who dismiss the message out of hand and then want to shoot the messenger; and those who dislike the messenger and thus dismiss the message. K
I usually stay the hell out of this stuff too........but you forgot the 3rd camp Kent.........the global warming agnostics who are truly open minded, who read the published articles, try to understand the applied science and listen to the evidence from both sides of the aisle, but who wish anyone but that blowhard Al Gore was out there trumpeting the sermon. His hypocrisy is staggering, his ego, monumental. his jet fuel costs and giant mansion are so............"eco friendly". Hey, I'm a capitalist pig and I have no issue with anyone making a good living...but off of this? While living the way he does? His daily intake of Keebler Elf snacks alone would feed a small village of idiots for a month.

And Phil is right........this wasn't a science award, it was the Nobel Peace prize for chrissake............he was selected over that woman that saved like 2,500 children from the friggin' NAZIs during the holocaust!

Okay, back to talking about the best 5 wt....................:rofl:


Active Member
It is interesting to contrast the personal sacrifice Al Gore has made for his cause (buying carbon credits from himself?) to the following from tomorrow's WSJ op ed piece.

Not Nobel Winners
October 13, 2007

In Olso yesterday, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was not awarded to the Burmese monks whose defiance against, and brutalization at the hands of, the country's military junta in recent weeks captured the attention of the Free World.

The prize was also not awarded to Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara and other Zimbabwe opposition leaders who were arrested and in some cases beaten by police earlier this year while protesting peacefully against dictator Robert Mugabe.

Or to Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest in Vietnam arrested this year and sentenced to eight years in prison for helping the pro-democracy group Block 8406.

Or to Wajeha al-Huwaider and Fawzia al-Uyyouni, co-founders of the League of Demanders of Women's Right to Drive Cars in Saudi Arabia, who are waging a modest struggle with grand ambitions to secure basic rights for women in that Muslim country.

Or to Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, who has fought tirelessly to end the violence wrought by left-wing terrorists and drug lords in his country.

Or to Garry Kasparov and the several hundred Russians who were arrested in April, and are continually harassed, for resisting President Vladimir Putin's slide toward authoritarian rule.

Or to the people of Iraq, who bravely work to rebuild and reunite their country amid constant threats to themselves and their families from terrorists who deliberately target civilians.

Or to Presidents Viktor Yushchenko and Mikheil Saakashvili who, despite the efforts of the Kremlin to undermine their young states, stayed true to the spirit of the peaceful "color" revolutions they led in Ukraine and Georgia and showed that democracy can put down deep roots in Russia's backyard.

Or to Britain's Tony Blair, Ireland's Bertie Ahern and the voters of Northern Ireland, who in March were able to set aside decades of hatred to establish joint Catholic-Protestant rule in Northern Ireland.

Or to thousands of Chinese bloggers who run the risk of arrest by trying to bring uncensored information to their countrymen.

Or to scholar and activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, jailed presidential candidate Ayman Nour and other democracy campaigners in Egypt.

Or, posthumously, to lawmakers Walid Eido, Pierre Gemayel, Antoine Ghanem, Rafik Hariri, George Hawi and Gibran Tueni; journalist Samir Kassir; and other Lebanese citizens who've been assassinated since 2005 for their efforts to free their country from Syrian control.

Or to the Reverend Phillip Buck; Pastor Chun Ki Won and his organization, Durihana; Tim Peters and his Helping Hands Korea; and Liberty in North Korea, who help North Korean refugees escape to safety in free nations.

These men and women put their own lives and livelihoods at risk by working to rid the world of violence and oppression. Let us hope they survive the coming year so that the Nobel Prize Committee might consider them for the 2008 award.
That's what sicience is, nothing can be 'proven' in science, its just a preponderance of the evidence.
whaaaa....? :hmmm: nothing can be proven? can you prove the temperature water freezes at? or what about how many teeth a coastal cutt has on its tongue?

preponderence of evidence is hardly truth. it would be refreshing to hear from the media stories that didn't say, italians commit more suicide because of global warming or global warming keep kids awake at night or gloabl warming is making the planet lopsided. if you think i'm joking, ask and i'll send you the articles
As a scientist, I'm tempted to say that the denial of human influence on global warming is the most egregious example of the willful disregard of science I've seen in a long, long time. But, as an evolutionary biologist, I must say that it's the sad truth that it falls a very distant second, at best.
As a scientist, I'm tempted to say that the denial of human influence on global warming is the most egregious example of the willful disregard of science I've seen in a long, long time. But, as an evolutionary biologist, I must say that it's the sad truth that it falls a very distant second, at best.
denial of the influence isn't the problem. the problem is the percieved magnitude of the influence. obviously people have an impact. they're there aren't they?
As a scientist, I'm tempted to say that the denial of human influence on global warming is the most egregious example of the willful disregard of science I've seen in a long, long time. But, as an evolutionary biologist, I must say that it's the sad truth that it falls a very distant second, at best.
OK, I'll bite. What's first?
as already pointed out, mr garton, review your statistics 101 course. science is just that, science. that means dealing with statistical PROBABILITY. when the conclusions are something akin to 97-98% certainity, you really can't get much better than that in any scientific investigation.

if you choose to make yourself aware of the volumes of literature, see above posts for some starting points, you will find a concensus among the scientific community that indeed, climate change is here and a reality.

even the common corporate owned media was reporting an unprecidented melting of the artic ice this summer. that is UNPRECIDENTED!!! now if you choose to watch 'an inconvenient truth', you know exactly what that means. the fact that the computer models were decades off on this prediction of melting is disconserting as it would suggest the process is more rapid than first believed.

is the greenland ice cap melting? yes it is and it is also melting far more rapidly than predicted. these are on the ground observatoins by a variety of folks. shutting down the gulf stream is going to usher in the second big chill for europe and the entire east coast, not a happy thought.

now if you choose, continue drinkin' the kool aid or just stick yur head in the sand but either way, climate change is'a'happin' and its moving at a lost faster pace than any group of scientists have been able to predict. which simply points out the unknown, from a scientific point of view, about our lack of knowledge regarding this occurance.

what some would want to suggest is that since we can't fit this into a neat shoe box and tie it with a ribbon, it does not exist. bullshit.............
Thanks, "mr gt" for putting up. Most people who are labeled ignorant like to know why, so they can at least repond.

I read through your repy. There was nothing I would consider controvercial or disputable... or pertinent to the real debate. Global warming is occuring. That is a fact. That real debate is wherether said global warming is man induced and man influenced and man controllable and requires some massive intervention to save the planet. I for one believe it is out of our hands, it is a natural phenomenon, we can minorly impact it but mostly we need to ride it out and adapt. That is our only option during periods of global change we never initiate of influence.

You should go back and make a fresh batch of cool-aid, since your current drink of choice is tainted with Gorardia.
Ken and Richard,
Once again insightful words from the two of you. Unfortunately, it looks like those words were lost on most of those here. I don't know how many times I sat down today to write something profound, but I just couldn't do it without torching others, or getting torched myself.
Thanks again,


Active Member
As a scientist, I'm tempted to say that the denial of human influence on global warming is the most egregious example of the willful disregard of science I've seen in a long, long time. But, as an evolutionary biologist, I must say that it's the sad truth that it falls a very distant second, at best.
I laughed! :rofl:


Active Member
OK, I'll bite. What's first?
I think the fact that he's an evolutionary biologist gives it away and as a trained biological anthropologist living in cubicle hell working as an analyst for an insurance company:beathead:, I would definitely agree with that.

Hey- I got to take a lot of cool classes in college:thumb:


Active Member
thanks for clarifiying mr garton. i am on the opposite side of the scientific debate, obviously. yes, the current change in climate is directly related to human intervention. when probability numbers from scientific studies, published in refereed journals, are in the high 90s, you have just read information as close to certainty as any scientist is willing to put forward. OTOH, you may choose to listen to the drug addict or the groper or the propoganda put out by the Gas and Oil folks, your choice.

for those of you who would rather bash the messenger, i feel'for'yah'cause you folks are truly closed minded. you are demonstrating for all who have read your posts just how uninformed you have chosen to remain. you might ask yourself if you have what it takes to dedicate your current life to voicing concern for an important event, any overwhelming global issue. of course we both know the answer to that, so go ahead and bash the messenger, that is not going to solve climate change, but i am sure you must feel better by displaying that part of your anatomy.

the WSJ is an interesting media source but i always have it for breakfast with a large helping of information from 5 other media sources. at least that way i can get a better perception of what might be actually be happening in our world. try it, you may come out ahead.

wadin' boot

Donny, you're out of your element...
Who would a thought a Dynamite Magnate and his fortune would cause so much controversy...oh maybe that's the point- the Peace Prize helps provoke action. If skepticism is all it provokes that's better than nothing. On the other hand, there are plenty of fence sitters that might enter the fray with some action that leads to overall benefit. I'd like to think that benefit will translate into a lower impact on the environment, better fishing, sustainable forests and efficient transportation in your own vehicle using power that is renewable. Better that than our climate becomes that of Phoenix...

The Peace Prize should have been given for whomever invented, As W calls it, "the internets". What a powerful tool for dissemination of information. Even look at this thread, guys are quoting Australian blogs, NASA statistics, WSJ editorials before they are printed- all in the space of minutes. If you have a computer and half a brain you can find whatever you want to justify your opinion. On the other hand with that same computer you can instantly become aware of injustice, oppression, destruction, corruption, intolerance, bigotry...In this last month for instance, those Burmese monks twenty years ago would all have been assassinated without a trace were it not for the internet. It is a version of Big Brother that is not the dystopia Orwell imagined, if anything it is utopian and the most potent tool for peace we have.

A vast collective brain, full of ideas.

Ideas like Mingo's (the only one that made me laugh in this whole righteous thread):

He cheeses out eco-friendly flatulence that smells like crushed fruit