The Nobel Peace Prize takes a hit in my book.

**MotoZ** · 10-14-07, 06:00 PM

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...aureates/2007/

Al Gore won 1/2 of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for, "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"

**Benandorf** · 10-14-07, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by ebaconjr

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...aureates/2007/

Al Gore won 1/2 of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for, "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"

How, exactly, has he laid foundations? Perhaps with his home that uses an obscene amount of power (and not solar, either)? Or simply his hypocracy?

*sigh* People are such sheep...

**MotoZ** · 10-14-07, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Benandorf

How, exactly, has he laid foundations? Perhaps with his home that uses an obscene amount of power (and not solar, either)? Or simply his hypocracy?

There is a link for questions on the Nobel web page. Hopefully they know for sure.

I agree that Al suffers from a serious hypocracy issue when it comes to his credibility on walking the talk. On the other hand he made a nice movie that started people thinking about the issue. For that he got 1/2 credit.

**Benandorf** · 10-14-07, 09:19 PM

He made a movie with evidence he created.

But... Let's not get into this.

**MotoZ** · 10-14-07, 09:49 PM

You can't drop a bomb like that and then run and hide. Show something that refutes the evidence. Al gets enough flak that there must be something available.

**Benandorf** · 10-14-07, 09:54 PM

There's plenty of studies done on both sides, most of them by people who have paid to make sure it comes out a certain way. You just gotta decide if you believe the ones that show that we're killing the earth (I.E. the ones that have been funded by people who want to cause the trouble) or the ones that show that it's a natural change (I.E. those funded by big corporations). Many of both are skewed, but if you only have evidence that is possibly skewed, it's hard to tell if it's right or bought.

**SapiensErus** · 10-14-07, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by Benandorf

He made a movie with evidence he created.

But... Let's not get into this.

OK, I have been following this thread for quite awhile.

Before I settled into Neuroscience as a field I studied a lot of things. Including Systems Science with a focus on Biogeochemical Cycles. I have read HUGE quantities of data regarding climate change. I have also run simulations for global climate change. I have a shelf of nothing but text books regarding the subject of environmental systems science (not environmentalist but but environmental mind you!) I wrote a 27 page research paper on the Carbon Cycle for one of my classes.

I also own a copy of the movie; and to my knowledge everything he has gathered is from credible sources and supported by a large portion of the "expert" community; I have seen a lot of the same research he is citing up close and personal in excruciating detail. So yeah, like bacon, I wanna know what he made up and how we know that.

**MotoZ** · 10-14-07, 09:59 PM

Here's an article on the ruling from the British court. I am still trying to find a copy of the ruling itself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101102134.html

**w4jchosen** · 10-14-07, 10:03 PM

Here is one of many:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noe...fear-mongering

**MotoZ** · 10-14-07, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by w4jchosen

Here is one of many:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noe...fear-mongering

That article relates to the quality of the Associated Press' reporting. It is unrelated to Al Gore's movie and/or the British High Court ruling.

Still searching . . .