Posted by: Captain Haddock October 12, 2007
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
A couple on further thoughts on the subject in light of some of the points raised:
(1) I am personally not a big fan of Gore and don't identify with him on all the issues. Although on the environment, global warming,( man made or natural), climate changes and the impact of all this on people's lives, my views are closer to his than lets say those in complete denial of climate change. I see them as no different from the alarmists. Gore, while prone to occasional exaggeration, has been able to back up his arguments with science and data. Global warming, man made or otherwise is happening - even Bush seems to have accepted this going by what he's trying to do these days.
(2) Running for President: He's not my favorite on this account and I seriously doubt he will do such a thing. He has attained national and international fame now as a result of this and going back into electoral politics might undo the immense credibility the Nobel gives him.
(3) The naysayers: There will always be those saying someone didn't deserve it or digging up dirt about people they dont like. He has impacted environment related policy for almost 30 years now whether it was talking about nuclear energy and waste in the 70s and 80s, getting Clinton to sign Kyoto in the 90s and his awareness about climate change in the 00s. This prize was not given for the movie he made. For that he got the academy awards. I agree there might be more deserving people, but I have yet to hear a sensible argument as to why his work is undeserving of it. It appears many people are bitter simply because they don't like Gore or think his work on environmental policy is bogus whereas the reality is there have been few people more influential than Gore on environmental policy in the last 10-20 years. Whether these were his own ideas or him pushing the ideas of others forward, he's been at the front and center of the debate for long enough to have credibility at the policy level IMO.
(4) Nobel Committee Activism: Clearly they have given him a platform to further influence environmental policy in the US which makes me wonder if that was really what they were up to from the get go. I guess we will never know but they certainly seem to have succeeded given how much the American media has talked about the environment and climate in the last 12 hours since the decision was announced.
Just my thoughts.
(1) I am personally not a big fan of Gore and don't identify with him on all the issues. Although on the environment, global warming,( man made or natural), climate changes and the impact of all this on people's lives, my views are closer to his than lets say those in complete denial of climate change. I see them as no different from the alarmists. Gore, while prone to occasional exaggeration, has been able to back up his arguments with science and data. Global warming, man made or otherwise is happening - even Bush seems to have accepted this going by what he's trying to do these days.
(2) Running for President: He's not my favorite on this account and I seriously doubt he will do such a thing. He has attained national and international fame now as a result of this and going back into electoral politics might undo the immense credibility the Nobel gives him.
(3) The naysayers: There will always be those saying someone didn't deserve it or digging up dirt about people they dont like. He has impacted environment related policy for almost 30 years now whether it was talking about nuclear energy and waste in the 70s and 80s, getting Clinton to sign Kyoto in the 90s and his awareness about climate change in the 00s. This prize was not given for the movie he made. For that he got the academy awards. I agree there might be more deserving people, but I have yet to hear a sensible argument as to why his work is undeserving of it. It appears many people are bitter simply because they don't like Gore or think his work on environmental policy is bogus whereas the reality is there have been few people more influential than Gore on environmental policy in the last 10-20 years. Whether these were his own ideas or him pushing the ideas of others forward, he's been at the front and center of the debate for long enough to have credibility at the policy level IMO.
(4) Nobel Committee Activism: Clearly they have given him a platform to further influence environmental policy in the US which makes me wonder if that was really what they were up to from the get go. I guess we will never know but they certainly seem to have succeeded given how much the American media has talked about the environment and climate in the last 12 hours since the decision was announced.
Just my thoughts.