Nobel Peace Prize 2003-2024


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well, I woke up to hear this "breaking news" as it came across my t.v. screen. It seems that honors keep rolling in for Gore lately. Maybe some can fault me for being too focused on the word "peace" but that is the word I'm focusing on. And as far Gore contributing a lot to helping the world be a more peaceful one, I must have missed that some where. Yes, the majority of things he's involved in is certainly worth while just not sure that in my opinion they are yet worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.
 
Congrats To Al Gore

Many heartfelt felicitations to the honourable Al Gore who has done so much to bring the environment to our attention.I cannot think of a more deserving individual who in speaking so eloquently about our environment deserves not just this award but our thanks as well..
Super!
 
If any one thinks this award was given for any reason other than to poke the U.S. President in the eye, then think again. Gore's film has had a majority of scientists reveal that it is full of untruths. Even a judge in Britain found it was riddled with 9 inaccuries(if you present something known to be false as the truth doesn't that make you a liar). Numerous scientists have challenged Gore to a debate, but he refuses.This, along with Yasser Arafat winning just destroyed any respect I had for a Nobel Award. The majority of the people in the U.S. are laughing at you Norway and Sweden !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do not want to get into a debate about the accuracy of his film. But, simply by generating the response to it that we have seen here, he would seem to me to have achieved his main goal: He has succeeded in bringing attention to his cause.

And for that alone I think he deserves congratulations.
 
Yes, but not a Nobel Prize.... In my opinion.
 
Yes, but not a Nobel Prize.... In my opinion.

Most people seem to be focusing on Gore - but he only got half of the prize.

Is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a less controversial winner, or are we simply focusing on the one man because it is easier than a panel and he has been more in the public eye?
 
Congratulations to the IPCC and Al Gore. I don't know much about Al Gore, whether he's sincere or not with the climate change issue, but still, I do applaud the decision to award these people. I think people are still taking this issue lightly, despite what's been happening to the environment over the past few years.

I also disagree about how climate change having nothing to do with peace issues. Jared Diamond's superb book about the role of the environment in the course of human affairs entitled Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, tells us otherwise. He gave examples of societies (Anasazi, Greenland Norse, Mayas) which perished due to abrupt climate change, whether natural or man-made. In some instances, climate change leads to scarcity of resources which leads to neighboring territories warring over each other for these resources. So climate change has a lot to do with world peace and I think we may feel that relationship more keenly in the years to come although, dear Lord, I truly hope not.

Anyhow, good decision re the award, the ICPP deserves it. I'm not sure about Albert Arnold, Jr. though. (Wow, an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize in the same year! All that's missing is an Olympic gold medal! Maybe he'll join the Javelin Throw Competition in Beijing next year... Hmmm...the only thing he can't seem to win is the Presidential Race. :D)
 
I will read the book you referenced, so thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You won't regret reading that book, it's extremely informative yet very readable too. (Jared Diamond's already won a Pulitzer for his other book, Guns, Germs, and Steel.)

Anyhow it bothers me to read here about people not finding the connection between environmental conditions and the state of the society. It's simply all about protecting what we have right now in whatever means necessary so that in the future (or even at present), this planet we're living in could still provide enough resources for its inhabitants. Ample resources means less fighting.

And it's not just the future we're talking about here. Some of the effects of climate change brought about by man's irresponsibility are being keenly felt at present, especially among a lot of inhabitants in third world countries, especially those who chose or were unable to industrialize. These people are the ones most vulnerable when it comes to dwindling natural resources because their livelihood (ie. fishing) is extremely dependent on the environment. So what do these people do? Go to the cities, forsake the kind of life they've been living for generations, their standards of living quickly deteriorating since they're ill-equipped for city-life. What happens next? Even more people in the cities, loss of some important kinds of laborers such as farmers and fishermen, less capacity for production, less everything for everyone, discontent, political disputes, chaos. And this is just one example out of so many out there regarding how much of what happens to our society could be traced to what we've been doing with our environment.

I think I'm getting off topic there...It's just that, more people should realize that no issue we face right now is isolated. Everything connects, especially the environment and human affairs and world peace. It's much, much, more than throwing one's trash to the right bin. Climate change does have massive relevance in people's lives and their communities and 99% of the time, these effects are not good.

Questioning Al Gore's sincerity is one thing. But questioning the award-giving body for commending these group of people who've managed to make ordinary people all over the world (yes, all over the world, not just Europe and North America) interested in climate change and its effects because it doesn't focus on peace...well it just totally frustrates me...
 
Ah, great... wonderful... I knew his named was familiar for a reason. I saw a great documentary on the subject of Guns, Germs, and Steel on PBS, now I must read this one! Let me express my respect for your eloquence and your understanding of this issue. I absolutely agree with you.
 
No Oscar for Gore

Actually, Al Gore did not win an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth". That award goes to the producer. He wrote the book the movie is based and narrated it, but he was not the producer. The confusion probably comes because he gave the acceptance speech at the Oscar ceremony, but that's because the actual winner asked him to - no doubt because of his long advocacy of environmental issues.
 
Most people seem to be focusing on Gore - but he only got half of the prize.

Is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a less controversial winner, or are we simply focusing on the one man because it is easier than a panel and he has been more in the public eye?

I think if the IPCC had won on its own, it'd have been controversial enough; the thing about Gore is that he's the human face of the global-warming advocates and so he's the one the deniers like to attack.
 
Actually, Al Gore did not win an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth". That award goes to the producer. He wrote the book the movie is based and narrated it, but he was not the producer. The confusion probably comes because he gave the acceptance speech at the Oscar ceremony, but that's because the actual winner asked him to - no doubt because of his long advocacy of environmental issues.

Oh yes, I forgot that. The Academy's website lists somebody else as the winner, the producer I think.

@Chimene, thanks. :)
 
Gore's film has had a majority of scientists reveal that it is full of untruths.

This is complete nonsense. But feel free to back it up with something remotely resembling facts if you can.

Even a judge in Britain found it was riddled with 9 inaccuries(if you present something known to be false as the truth doesn't that make you a liar).

Right, let's put this in perspective.

This film is 100 minutes long - that's over an hour and a half. It's loaded with scientific information. Finding nine errors in a presentation that long is not remotely a case of it being "riddled" with inaccuracies. And depending on the nature of the inaccuracies, no, it doesn't necessarily make someone a liar.

Here's a transcript of the movie:

Politics Blog » An Inconvient Truth Transcript

Here are the nine inaccuracies (from the New Scientist blog).

1. Sea level rise of up to 7 metres will be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

I may be missing something, but I don't see anything about "the near future" in either the transcript or the book, which I'm looking at as I write this. It just says that if certain parts of these ice shelves melt - and it turns out that the melting is happening faster than was predicted and is accelerating - it'll lead to a sea level rise of 18-20 feet. He quoted Sir David King in support of his thesis.

2.Low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of global warming. Populations have had to evacuating as a result.

The judge claimed that there was no evidence that evacuations had happened. However, there is documented evidence that as early as 2003 the residents of Carteret Atoll were slated for evacuation because the atoll was being flooded. The evacuation was supposed to have been done by now but has been delayed. To say that there's no evidence that it has already happened is to be distinctly disingenuous. The evacuation is under way, it just isn't a done deal yet.

3.The "Ocean Conveyor" in the North Atlantic will shut down

The judge says there's no evidence for this. At the time the movie was being made, it was generally thought that there was a real possibility that this might happen if enough melting took place in the Arctic. More recent research (last year or two) shows that it's probably unlikely. At the time the movie was being prepared, the notion of the conveyer shutting down was pretty much the conventional wisdom.

4.There is a direct relationship between historic rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature

The judge was taking issue with an assertion of an exact fit between two graphs (one of carbon dioxide and one of temperature). I don't see anywhere in the book or the transcript where he claims an exact fit. His actual words are "The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside." Please note the "the relationship is very complicated" comment. Not quite "there's an exact fit."

5.The receding snows of Kilimanjaro are due to global warming

This is too simplistic a statement since there seem to be a number of effects in this case. However, like the conveyor question, confirmatory studies of other effects weren't published till 2006, meaning that Gore was basing his conclusion on the science available at the time. This doesn't alter the fact that it's universally accepted (apart from by the deniers, who don't seem to accept anything) that many cases of depletion of year-round snow and recession of glaciers are due directly to global warming.

6.Lake Chad's disappearance is due to global warming

The judge claims that the disappearance is due to other causes, including overuse for irrigation and local climate variability. However, the main cause appears to be a series of devastating droughts in the area over several years, a symptom far more of long-term climate change than just local stuff. One of the predictions of global warming is the pattern of severe drought year after year after year in some areas and severe flooding in others.

7.The impact of Hurricane Katrina was due to global warming

This is another oversimplistic statement, and the science at the time was less firm than it is now. However, he's quite right when he says "Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms." Hurricanes get their energy as they pass over warm water, and the seas are getting warmer. There are a lot of other factors in the number and strength of hurricanes, but in terms of the aspect related to global warming, he isn't making any errors.

8.Polar bears are dying due to disappearing ice

The judge claimed that the only study of dying polar bears showed that they died in a storm, not from drowning after being unable to find ice. However, again, the more severe weather in the North Atlantic is believed to be a function of climate change. And also, it was reported at the time of the study that the bears had died because of lack of ice. For example:

Polar bears drown as ice shelf melts - Times Online
SpringerLink - Journal Article

The abstract of the study said "We speculate that mortalities due to offshore swimming during late-ice (or mild ice) years may be an important and unaccounted source of natural mortality given energetic demands placed on individual bears engaged in long-distance swimming. We further suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues."

And that's what Gore reported.

If that's what scientists were saying at the time and that's what he included in his film because it's what the scientists were saying, then the only problem with his comments is that they appear to be a bit out of date. Which is par for the course when dealing with a fast-moving scientific field.

9.Coral reef bleaching events are due to global warming

The judge said he shouldn't have claimed that bleaching is due to global warming when there are also other factors. However, the amount of warming over the last 50 years is within the parameters of causation by global warming. No doubt there are also other factors, some of which may not be independent of global warming, but global warming is a major one and there's little disagreement on that point.

Seems to me that this judge is nitpicking to kingdom come, and I'd be interested to know why. I hope we get some more details in the future about who advised him. He's complaining about some cases of conclusions based on science that was current at the time but has been overtaken in the meantime, he's quibbling about evacuations because they haven't actually happened yet even though it's a matter of record that they're under way, he's saying that Gore makes claims he doesn't actually make. This looks like a case of a person going full-out to try and find mistakes. The fact that he only found nine, some of which are very dubious, in a movie this long when he was obviously looking so hard means that the movie is overall a very accurate piece of work.
 
Last edited:
This is complete nonsense. But feel free to back it up with something remotely resembling facts if you can.



Right, let's put this in perspective.

This film is 100 minutes long - that's over an hour and a half. It's loaded with scientific information. Finding nine errors in a presentation that long is not remotely a case of it being "riddled" with inaccuracies. And depending on the nature of the inaccuracies, no, it doesn't necessarily make someone a liar.....

Thank You Elspeth! I started to jump in, but didn't think It was worth my bother, as there are always people who are happy to repeat anything they hear or read that do not not take in to consideration who the naysayers really are and what their agenda is. We have had Bush administration's own scientist tell where they are edited so much as to give the opposite view as to what they were originally saying. I'm glad Al Gore was recognized for his passion & efforts. As to how sincere he is? He was the first to speak out & write a book years ago, when it wasn't a popular issue while the first Pres. George Bush use to call him a nut.
 
ABS-CBN Interactive

........Six female Nobel peace prize winners called Wednesday for more decisive international action to secure the release of their fellow laureate, the Myanmar democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.............:flowers:
 
Great news !! Uma Thurman never dissapoints. Btw, how do they get choosen, to host's the concert?

The Nobel Peace Prize committee chooses them, with input from the winners (Al Gore suggested Tommy Lee Jones, for example).
 
To the German watchers and those who have German TV:

PHOENIX is going to show a special about the Nobel Prizes 2007 (and I guess they'll also broadcast it) during their program "Vor Ort" and afterwards.
 
To the German watchers and those who have German TV:

PHOENIX is going to show a special about the Nobel Prizes 2007 (and I guess they'll also broadcast it) during their program "Vor Ort" and afterwards.

Oh, really? That's cool! Are they showing it the whole afternoon like on the nobel.se Website?
 
This years Nobel Peace Prize laureates, Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meet with Norwegian Royal Family in the Royal Palace in Oslo, 10 December 2007. Gore and Pachauri will receive the Nobel Peace Prize for their work in helping to combat global warming.

http://picture.belga.be/belgapicture/picture/prev/8039397.jpg
http://picture.belga.be/belgapicture/picture/prev/8039387.jpg
http://picture.belga.be/belgapicture/picture/prev/8039280.jpg

At live, you can see Peace Nobel ceremony ( Mette Marit looks nice, simply but elegant)
TV4 Anytime • Nobelsändningarna
 
Last edited:
Dark colours again... Mette-Marit looks very casual, well at least not very festive or official, and Sonja has a strange very informal hat... M-M one of those black hairpieces she loves... :eek:
 
Last edited:
It's very interesting, I've never seen one of these live before. I think Mette-Marit looks really great, so do everyone else.

Maybe OT or obvious, but why is the Peace Prize done in Norway, but all of the others in Sweden.
 
It is not obvious, and it is not truelly known why Alfred Nobel chose to have The Peace Prize awarded in Oslo. He stated in his will that it was to be so, but he did however, not explain why.

Here are some useful homepages with more information.

Nobelprize.org and The Norwegian Nobel Institute
 
Back
Top Bottom