Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. 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.

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures ...

"You've got to be kidding me. This is worse that Yassar Arafat."

I couldn't believe they gave Nelson Mandella the 1993 Peace Prize with Klerk stating: "for their work for the peaceful termination of the apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a new democratic South Africa"

* The following is a full list of munitions and charges against Mandella:

• One count under the South African Suppression of Communism Act No. 44 of 1950, charging that the accused committed acts calculated to further the achievement of the objective of communism;
• One count of contravening the South African Criminal Law Act (1953), which prohibits any person from soliciting or receiving any money or articles for the purpose of achieving organized defiance of laws and country; and
• Two counts of sabotage, committing or aiding or procuring the commission of the following acts:
1) The further recruitment of persons for instruction and training, both within and outside the Republic of South Africa, in:

(a) the preparation, manufacture and use of explosives—for the purpose of committing acts of violence and destruction in the aforesaid Republic, (the preparation and manufacture of explo- sives, according to evidence submitted, included 210,000 hand grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 1,500 time devices, 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminum powder and a ton of black powder);

(b) the art of warfare, including guerrilla warfare, and military training generally for the purpose in the aforesaid Republic;

(ii) Further acts of violence and destruction, (this includes 193 counts of terrorism committed between 1961 and 1963);
(iii) Acts of guerrilla warfare in the aforesaid Republic;
(iv) Acts of assistance to military units of foreign countries when involving the aforesaid Republic;
(v) Acts of participation in a violent revolution in the aforesaid Republic, whereby the accused, injured, damaged, destroyed, rendered useless or unserviceable, put out of action, obstructed, with or endangered:

(a) the health or safety of the public;
(b) the maintenance of law and order;
(c) the supply and distribution of light, power or fuel;
(d) postal, telephone or telegraph installations;
(e) the free movement of traffic on land; and
(f) the property, movable or immovable, of other persons or of the state.
Source: The State v. Nelson Mandela et al, Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division, 1963-1964, Indictment.

LINK

>>>I gave a talk to a group of largely conservative business people yesterday, and mentioned that there is now fairly incontrovertible proof that throughout history, temperature increases have PRECEDED spikes in atmospheric CO2. I said that this could disprove the theory that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas within the earth’s atmosphere because, if CO2 increases after temperature increases, then theoretically the temperature would continue to go up, in a self-perpetuating manner. They were dumbfounded, incredulous, and indignant that I could say such a thing. <<<

Yep. Did you suggest they watch The Great Global Warming Swindle (or something to that effect) produced by Channel 4 in Britain? It discusses this very thing.

You’re right, though, that I’ve run into many, many people who treat this notion of man-made climate change as absolute truth without really even knowing why or having any justification whatsoever outside of “scientists say.”

I must admit that if I need to explain how the lack of clean drinking water and the desperation that will lead to can cause violent (self preservation) reactions... then indeed there is no hope.
The costs are nothing more then what we are all required to do sooner or later anyways.
Oil is not an ideal source of energy and we need research advancement to make effective changes.

The costs are only closer, they are nothing new.
It really doesn’t matter why you think the changes are happening because they ARE happening.
What matters (and what they are given the award for) is awareness.
If you want to mock and ask something as childish as “should we go up with buckets” then you are in a mindset that will doom us all no matter WHY the changes are happening.
But perhaps you will at some point sit down and actually understand that by being aware of what is the reality of things we can actually take actions that will prevent the deaths of countless people.
This is about perspective, a broader perspective. (good luck with that)

But then again, denial does wonders, we see proof of that every day thanks to some people.
And in the end, it’s OK. it’s not like you matter in that same broader perspective so keep your happy blissful ignorance.

First of all there is no alternative to carbon as a fuel source since only carbon and hydrogen will burn readily at ambient temperature; hydrogen must first be separated from whatever molecular bond it exists naturally and that can only be done by adding heat which must come from burning something.

One poster on here had the rather novel idea of processing magnesium ore and turning it into a fuel that could be stored safely, transported efficiently and be made to burn in ordinary atmosphere.

Such a technology would take many years to ramp up and decades to show its worth as an alternative fuel - and then we would run out of magnesium.

Therefore, all attempts at reducing carbon require the discontinuance of its use on a manageable scale or burying its byproducts.

And you somehow think that won’t lead to want and strife, battles for one’s share, and a stripping of the western world’s wealth to keep the encroaching horde at bay?

Only nuclear power currently serves to provide energy at a net gain in this so-called mission to remove the evil carbon

The cure is worse than the disease.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.