Despite what the sceptics think about climate change, Al Gore has considerably raised its profile throughout the world, he is passionately devoted to initiating international action on this.
The latest controversy is whether he should win the Nobel Peace Prize because of his outstanding work. He has been nominated for the Nobel prize jointly with Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian Inuit activist who has campaigned about the effect of climate change on Arctic peoples.
If a campaigner against global warming carries off the $1.5 million prize money this Friday, there will have been a shift to reward work outside traditional peacekeeping and reinforce the link between peace and the environment.
A prerequisite for the peace prize is that you have to make a difference, and there is no doubt that Al and his campaigners have done this. I believe they deserve to win this prestigious honour. I do not know the background of the other 180 nominations, but clearly Al’s work will help save countless lives.
The latest stark warning about climate change came from Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in London last week.
They were told that consequences could include widespread starvation, as farm yields fall 50% in parts of Africa, water shortages for 300m and the destruction of 20-30% of species. If targets are missed the rise could reach 4C.
“We have come to the conclusion that global warming is unequivocal,� he said. “What is particularly worrying is that it is accelerating�.
Do you feel Al and Sheila should win the Nobel Peace Prize?
Update 12 October: Just confirmed, Al Gore and the and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. What an honour.
[…] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerpt against global warming carries off the $1.5 million prize money this Friday, there will have been… could reach 4C. We have come to the conclusion that global warming is unequivocal, he said […]
Absolutely not.
There are various theories regarding the reasons for global warming , extra activity on the Sun being one of them .
Im far from convinced its down to Man alone .
Plus, the earth has been here a long time who knows how often the present situation has happened indeed how often before human activity ever started.
Look at past performance of extreme weather in the time any of us has been alive .
Plus I gather that the middle ages were much warmer and colder .
I can remember horrific winters especially the one of 1963 .
Living then in the North we had snow feet deep for around 2 months .
The other reason for not giving it to Gore of all people is that he himself is a huge polluter , private jets , a house like .Blackpool, its called hypocrisy or do as I say not as I do .
Typical politician really.
Save the awards for those who are genuine .
Georgegirl:
I think the problem I am having with what you’ve written is that you seem trapped in this idea that because there are other effects on climate than greenhouse gasses, that somehow means that the catastrophic global warming is just a debatable “theory.” The problem here is that the expert climatologists at NASA, the IPCC and other highly-regarded institutions all know about solar activity, natural fluctuations, external forcings like volcanoes, the interactions between the various greenhouse gasses, paleoclimate trends, etc. These are people who have spent their lives researching, collecting and analyzing data, creating and testing and retesting climate models.
For you or I (or Michael Crichton or Fred Singer) who have no expertise in this area to think that we can flippantly dismiss their findings when these climatologists are speaking in something close to unison about the problem strikes me as the highest degree of arrogance and folly.
Existing climate models have carefully included all of the other climate factors that you mention – and more – and what is particularly important is that these models have been tested to see how they “fit” with real climate observations. So they take a model that they have been created and then place that model in the past and see how it performs by fitting the actual data. And they’ve found that these models fits quite well, meaning that these highly expert climatologists understand quite enough about the multifarous factors controlling the Earth’s climate to be able to account for them mathematically. You and I have nothing to add to that discussion. That work has been painstakingly done over the course of the last 30 + years. Now it is our job to come together and address the problem while we still have a prayer of doing so.
For using his intelligence, kindness, wisdom and good humor to make us wake up and realize that this is it, this is our only chance to act and preserve a hospitable climate for human civilization on Earth, Al Gore and Sheila Watt-Clotier deserve all of our gratitude and accolades.
Well , Im no expert but I do try to listen and read a variety of views .
Unfortunately anyone now daring to question the various possible causes is in great danger of being classed as either a heretic or akin to a holacaust denier.
Also there is also now the undisputed fact that climate change research is the fastest growing and best funder science of any .
Its a whole new growth area and will keep many in work for the rest of their lives ( or till we all drown under the waters of the world )Cant be bad .
I reckon that James Lovelock has possibly got it somewhere about right .
We have unfortunately messed up at the wrong time ( when the Suns activity is growing ) and we ( humans ) are for it .
We could of course help by nuclear energy , but of course we have the problem of India , China and indeed the States who are taking no notice of Mr Gore saint though he might be.
Still Lovelocks theory of Gaia( if I understand it correctly ) is that though we might be dead in the water the planet will survive (no doubt it will be well off without us teaming all over the place making such a mess of everything )
Science is often about that which defies scientific consensus:
Galileo
Einstein
Newton
Copernicus
Da Vinci
All were individualists who challenged and changed mainstream scientific opinion. That the IPCC or the Royal Institute have consensus among their members doesn’t mean that they cannot be overturned by some radical thought.
My question to Global Warmers (bearing in mind that the Earth has a history of climate change – much of it drastic) is this:
What temperature would you like our planet to be then ?
I wish to refer to comment 3 (AGW is all too real). It would be nice to know who you are, AGW (I’m Kevin the train driver)
I cannot understand a word of what you’ve just written there. More to the point I suspect that Al Gore – a politician and failed presidential candidate at a loose end – won’t have a clue what you’ve just written there either. So why, pray tell, does he deserve the Nobel Peace Prize ? It appears to me that all he’s done is jumped on a bandwagon with, by all accounts, a pretty shoddy film and lecture tour on the back of work which he clearly doesn’t understand – regardless of whether it is right or wrong. Surely if anyone ought to be getting an award it should be the scientist that provided him with this information.
Finally …
I thought we’d been through all this a few months ago, Ellee – but rather like the EU Treaty AKA Constitution we’re being decieved and we’re going to get this rammed down our throats by politicians right or wrong.
There’s money or glory, or both in it – that’s why.
This is why I’m going to have to use poisonous light bulbs from January which actually use more energy unless they are left on. These bulbs also fail to contribute heat to the ambient warmth of my house unlike the old ones, so my central heating thermostat will be turned up to compensate.
This is why I now have to buy bin liners to replace the carrier bags I used to use for rubbish and why I now burn rubbish in my garden.
This is why I now pay more for my petrol regardless of the fact that I have been unable to reduce my mileage to benefit the environment.
This is why our Government is increasing runway capacity at airports …
Stuffing our country with more and more people ignoring totally their own exhortations about energy consumption and landfill …
This is why Tony Blair is looking for yet another house …
Why Al Gore leaves the lights on in his mansion and uses limousines …
Why Bono has his own jet aeroplane as does that hypocrite John Travolta …
I could go on.
In fact I will go on !
When are we going to invade China and stop them building power stations ? When are we going to tell Gupta in Calcutta that he can’t own a fridge or an air-conditioning system ?
The genie’s out of the bottle – because of human nature we can’t stop this. Short of imperialism (a notion which Al Gore’s country hates) how else are we to stop the crude and environmentally destructive industrialisation of countries whose people are less sentimental or afraid than we are and who are excited at the prospect of striving for the privileged lifestyles we enjoy ?
Unwittingly the scientists have become the agents of politicians whose fundamental instinct is to show people who’s boss. This bandwagon has little to do with the environment.
The hypocrisy and dishonesty of the politicians and celebrities is manifest in their behaviour – watch them closely and be sure to criticise them when they fall short of the ideals they impose on others. In fact you’ll find they fall short most of the time.
There is a rather delicious irony in this announcement coming at the same time that a UK court has ruled that Gore’s film is full of factual errors and also following just a few days after his claims of 20ft rises in sea levels were made to look a little “odd” by his purchase of a chunk of real estate just off the seafront in San Francisco.
My goodness Ellee, you set the cat among the pigeons with this simple question.
My answer would be no, because it is not what the intention of this prize was.
I’m afraid that I am also very suspicious of Al Gore and his motives for promoting this cause which I suspect are more political than “for the good of man”.
I think he’s a con-man, he’s apparently embroiled in the ‘offsetting’ business where they charge you £10 to buy a tree that is already there.
Despite what the sceptics say, I still feel Al Gore has distinguished himself in this field. My only concern is that the Peace Prize may not have had been designed with this kind of mission in mind. Undoubtedly, the future actions by governments worldwide as a result of his will save countless lives and make a difference, that is my view – and we can all have our differing views on this.
The question remains whether Al is the Nobel man for the Peace Prize?
I feel that the Prize would be greatly diminished if it were awarded to him, Ellee.
Firstly, I doubt the Nobel Peace Prize has anything to do with the evironment, and second of all, for all Gore’s protestations about supposed ‘Global Warming’ he is much more guilty than the normal man on the street, what with his various houses with luxury electrical appliances, his 3 screen computer system and all his jet setting. He’s set a pretty bad example.
I do believe it would devalue the Prize if he won it, however… on reflection, it has been devalued for some 9 years after it was awarded to Trimble and Hume for the piece by piece process in Northern Ireland…
Perhaps I can remind you of Darfur, described as the first Climate Change War:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,,2067637,00.html
“The implications are far-reaching. On top of all the economic and ecological implications of global warming, there is the very real prospect it will lead to more conflicts like Darfur, as groups who have coexisted until now begin to feel a sense of urgency over the diminishing resources of water and land.”
Darfur is the ‘first climate change war’ now is it? Everyone has ‘coexisted peacefully until now’ in Sudan have they?
“It began with the Egyptian conquest of the Sudan by Mohammed ‘Ali … in 1820 … The new regime set out to administer the Sudan in accordance with the Tamzimat or moderization principals already being applied in Egypt. A local army was recruited from the southern population and the country was divided into administrative districts whos officials collected taxes from the village headmen. The Egyptians organised a state trading monopoly, and slave raiding also became a state business.” (A History of Islamic Societies, Ira M Lapidus, Cambridge University Press, p 853.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ahmad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sudanese_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janjaweed
Please people, more reading up, less dumbing down.
More reading:
“Military regimes favoring Islamic-oriented governments have dominated national politics since independence from the UK in 1956. Sudan was embroiled in two prolonged civil wars during most of the remainder of the 20th century. These conflicts were rooted in northern economic, political, and social domination of largely non-Muslim, non-Arab southern Sudanese. The first civil war ended in 1972 but broke out again in 1983. The second war and famine-related effects resulted in more than 4 million people displaced and, according to rebel estimates, more than 2 million deaths over a period of two decades……..”
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/su.html
So it was all ‘climate change’ on not decades of unproductive civil war that led to the current humanitarian catastrophe?
Here’s some more statistics on Sudan and one of it’s competitor economies Saudi Aarabia:
Total Land:
Sundan: 2,376,000,000 sq km
Saudi Arabia: 2,149,690 sq km
Arable Land:
Sudan: 6.78%
Saudi Arabia: 1.67%
Proved Oil Reserves:
Sudan: 1.6 billion bbl
Saudi Arabia: 261.9 bbl
Oil Exports:
Sudan: 279,100 bbl/day
Saudi Arabia: 8,554,000,000 bbl/day
Natural Gas – Proved Reserves:
Sudan: 84.95 billion cu m
Saudi Arabia: 6.654 trillion cu m
Natural Gas Production:
Sudan: 0
Saudi Arabia: 65.68 billion cu m
Irrigated Land:
Sudan: 18,630 sq km
Saudi Arabia: 16,200 sq km
Area (Water)
Sudan: 129,810 sq km
Saudi Arabia: 0
You’d expect the Sudanese to be poorer than the Saudi’s, but to say that Darfur war was caused by hot weather and a lack of irrigated, arable land and that decades of unproductive civil war has had nothing to do with it it sheer ignorance.
This is why I never read the Guardian.
Electro-Kevin wrote “I feel that the Prize would be greatly diminished if it were awarded to him, Ellee”.
Too late Kev. The prize was diminished years ago when they gave it to some Egyptian terrorist called Yasser Arafat.
In terms of raising awareness, few have done more than Al Gore. Having said that, not all of his arguments are watertight and might have been a springboard for a Presidential campaign rather than a genuinely selfless act.
Personally I feel you should only get the award when you have actually achieved something. Gore has raised awareness but that’s not dealing with the problem. I’d also rather it went to someone from the third world and a conflict we know little about that needs more media coverage- Gore can always get coverage- awarding it to the Burmese monks say would maintain awareness about that issue which would otherwise quickly sink.
I accept your points Jeremy and Will B that the NPP was diminished years ago. It ought to be presented by someone like Carole Vorderman or Jonnathon Ross.
Al’s my favorite for the prize. He should receive it in common with Sheila Watts-Cloutier. Al should be awarded for bringing this important issue onto the worlds agenda, and she should be awarded for beeing so committed. Many assume that Al will run for presdidency if he will get the prize. Thats not the point. He must run for he is the only one to repair all the damage that has been done during the last 7 years. Thats the opinion from a “Berliner”.
Short answer: No. If you did so, you might as well give him the Nobel for inventing the Internet while you were at it.
“I accept your points Jeremy and Will B that the NPP was diminished years ago. It ought to be presented by someone like Carole Vorderman or Jonnathon Ross”.
Or me?
Jeremy Jacobs – Presenter
I absolutely agree that he should get some award for raising the profile of this issue. However his film should be viewed with care as it does contain some disputed material.
Anyone who now does not believe that Man is responsible for driving this planet towards being near uninhabitable is simply burying their heads in the sand.
“Anyone who now does not believe that Man is responsible for driving this planet towards being near uninhabitable is simply burying their heads in the sand.” (Maalie)
Quite possibly the most idiotic comment I’ve ever read on a blog.
‘uninabitable’, speak for yourself. Something called a ‘car’ that cost me £575 got me to work and back today on something called a ‘road’ running on something called ‘petrol’ that was refined from something called ‘oil’ and made of materials such as ‘metals’ that were refined from ‘minerals’ called ‘ores’.
All mans work, and all very ‘inhabitable’. All produces CO2 too, are you suggesting civilisation should stop? Would the ensuing civil unrest and chaos make your life more bearable?
Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke: phoney science and hype designed to scare us all into allowing Britain, Europe, Americas and Australia to be stripped of jobs. Jobs which will all be shipped to China, where manufacturing is carried out with electricity from coal-fired power stations, using the some of dirtiest coal on the planet. Try explaining that type of peace to our grandchildren in a few years’ time!
This award is an insult to those who won the award in years gone by, and actually deserved it. Like Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan. Who? They were a couple of lasses from West Belfast who formed the Peace People to march against the activities of the IRA which led to death and mayhem in their City. Every day they risked being murdered by Sinn Fein/IRA and various loyalist murder gangs as well.
Unlike Al the Phoney, these women actually did something for peace. And actually took risks for it beyond anything most of us can comprehend.
The only thing can can drag the Nobels lower would be Bush and Blair winning next year! But would anyone dare bet against it?
Jeremy Jacobs – I would have suggested you to have awarded the prize but thought you had too much class.
Ellee says ” what an honour ” , more like what a joke.
Ellee you need to read todays Telegraph and the piece by Damian Thompson regarding Gore , its spot on in every detail .
All that this award has done is discredit the Nobel ideals .
What we have now is political correctness .
The result will be even less chance now of a proper grown up debate .Perhaps non believers will be made to wear a mark of some kind.
It reminds me of the Nazis burning books .
I just knew you would update this.
And I still say Gore is a horrible choice.
But, then, so was Arafat in 1994.
And the “draft Gore” (for President) nonsense is making the rounds in the news today. I would tell you with confidence that this will soon die down, weighed down by its own absurdity… but I have proved myself to be a poor handicapper….
[…] Nobel Peace Prize winner described his frustrations at being unable to persuade the Bush administration to take […]