Al Gore won Nobel Peace prize! What the heck..Ironic? (read please)?

Question

You can check this out on Snopes.com under "The Story of Two Houses".




House #1 A 20 room mansion ( not including 8 bathrooms ) heated by
natural gas. Add on a pool ( and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.




House #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground.
The water (usually 67 degrees F. ) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of
the "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford,
Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States,
George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".

For those of you asking "what?"

Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his, well, basically "Environmental Work"
By the looks of his house, do you really think he is concerned about the environment?

Bob, he needs to PRACTICE WHAT HE PREACHES

BOTTOM LINE

Answer 1

exactly! I think this time around, they ran out of people to choose from, either that, or he bribed people to get it. Or maybe its a publicity stunt. I REALLY am pissed off that he won the prize. I was like WTF?! How the hell did he win?! Seriously though, he made NO contributions to society, he's a self-centered egotistical *******... its all about the money, not about people benefitting. Peace?! What is that anymore?! If anything, he's caused great debates and arguments! 20 times more wasteful than the average american and 20 times more of a douchbag.

Answer 2

Wow, that's just weird. It falls in line with the two men's political ideas though.

Al Gore is a wealthy liberal. This means he would like everyone to make sacrifices, but he would like to be on top and enjoy his lifestyle.

George W. Bush is a wealthy conservative. This means he's most likely practical. His house has been designed so that not only is it energy efficient, but it probably costs little to run and maintain. Since he's practical, he hasn't advocated things like the Kyoto treaty, since they don't make fiscal sense (i.e. you get small benefit, or none at all, for a huge cost).

You should also point out what kind of negative impact Gore's special concert series had on the environment. He's definitely a wolf in sheep's clothing and for the Nobel committee not to see that says a lot. I guess they certainly don't hire the best and the brightest.

Answer 3

I'm not sure I qualify as a "non political" American, but I'd like to answer anyway. Who won last year? How many know? I don't remember her name. I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm no longer even sure what her country of origin was, but I think it was in Africa. I remember thinking at the time that I hoped her winning the prize furthered her goals, because they sounded truly altruistic and worthy. I remember thinking at the time that she was facing some pretty steep political resistance. I suspect this year's award will have similar "impact." For the record, I'm fiscally conservative, fundamentally libertarian in politics, and liberal on many social issues. Edit addition - I hope that he uses his political connections and name recognition to get some action on conservation and reliance on non-fossil fuels.

Answer 4

My only question is:

What, exactly, is Al Gore's significant accomplishment towards achieving peace? Isn't that what the Peace Prize is about?

Making a documentary (a questionable one at that) doesn't contribute at all towards that end.

Did I miss something?

Here's the express purpose of the peace prize, direct from the Nobel Foundation's website:
"When Alfred Nobel died on December 10, 1896, it was discovered that he had left a will, dated November 27, 1895, according to which most of his vast wealth was to be used for five prizes, including one for peace. The prize for peace was to be awarded to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses." The prize was to be awarded "by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting."

So, how exactly does Al Gore's work on global warming do anything for "fraternity between nations", the "abolition or reduction of standing armies" or "the holding of peace congresses"?

Total farce of an award this year based on the hokiest of sciences. Hell, they should just call it the Church of Global Warming and be done with it.

Update: I agree, Al Gore should practice what he preaches. I guess we just have to understand, though. Al Gore is working tirelessly to promote "greenness" and "environmental friendlines"........for everyone else. You CANNOT be an effective messenger at all if you are telling everyone else "shame on you", but yet you make zero effort to take the "simple steps" (as he calls them) to reduce power consumption and waste at your own house. It can't be "It's good for you and you should do it, but don't dare question me when I don't do it."

Rubbish.

Answer 5

Al Gore's lifestyle is completely unimportant to the issue of global warming. It's just political crap.

Note that Gore shares the Nobel with the IPCC. Together they deserve it, the IPCC for proving that global warming is real, and Gore for making that known to the world.

The reason they got the Peace Prize is set out in the award. The effects of global warming are very liable to cause resource struggles that will create wars. The US military is very worried about it.

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=1190

Great website for unbiased scientific information on global warming:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

Answer 6

Shows the hypocrisy involved basically

Al Gore should stop bulls***ing about the climate and start doing something about his house

Answer 7

dang. How ironic is it that he's preaching about this stuff and his own house is contributing so much to the global warming...

the brother needs to practice what he preaches!

Answer 8

He deserved because he is AMERICAN.

Statistically 90% NOBEL are WON by AMERICAN. Therefore it is absolutely statistically correct.

Now the treal Q how to ensure CLEAN PEACEFUL WORLD?

HOW?

How?
READ FOLLOWING:

Is nuclear deal of India with US is really worth?
It worth down the line of 50 - 60 years.


[A}.-Why worth ?
1) Fossile fuel is limited in INDIA and world.,
2) Nuclear fuel is also limited in INDIA AS WELL AS in world but can give enrgy for some years.


[B]. - Con of Nuclear?
Nuclear power cost is Rs 3.00 per Kwh Where as coal cost Rs 1.40 per Kwh
Like petroleum, Foreign currancy will goout for
1). TECHNOLOGY,
2). FUEL,
3). INSPECTION,
4). EQUIPMENT, ETC
other CONs are:
5) Dependent on other
6) Possible stopage of fuel on later date (like USA stopped for TARAPUR UNITS, canadian STOPPED FOR RAWTBHATA UNITS)
7) Radioactive and toxic WASTE Management,
8) Radiation to workers,
9) Raidation to public, in the event of Nuclear accident,
10) Long construction period and high cost of nuclear power plant.


[C]. - Options for INDIA ?
OPTIONS with little or no foreign currancy OUTGO:
1) WIND mill with limitless energy
2) HYDRAL with limitless life span,
3) SOLAR with limitless life,
4) Municipal waste with limitless life,
5) Agriculture waste WITH LIMITLESS LIFE,
6) COAL,
7) GAS.
OPTION WITH FOREIGN CURRANCY OUTGO:
1) NUCLEAR,
2) PETROLEUM,
3) GAS.


[D] Why 50 - 60 years?
Now INDIA MAY SURVIVE with Coal,Gas, Wind, Solar, Hydral, WASTE, Etc but after 60 years fossile will vanish and WIND, SOLAR, HYDRAL, WASTE cannot give sufficient energy for the INDUSTRY.


[E].- What is the option ?
INDIA SHALL USE NUCLEAR OPTION FOR ENERGY GENERATION..


[F] What is about foreign currency, dependence?
1). SINCE 50 - 60 YEARS is long. INDIA SHALL EXPLORE IT'S 1800 KM by 2000 km land surface, 100 - 2000 km on sea bed to check if Urenium can be extracted economically.
2) USA has formed NSG with 50 countries to deny access to nuclear fuel to countries like NDIA. World has 120 - 150 countries. INDIA can make an extensive search for URANIUM in the remaining POOR countries. It will help that POOR country for their economic upliftment and HELP india to get fuel. But how does it stop the foreigncurrency outgo? Since these poor contries need is limited to " ROOTI-KAPDE-AUR-MOKAN", in which INDIA is strong enough; it can exchagne those goods with NUCLEAR FUEL ( if available). Since these poor countries does not have economical, technological capability, they will welcome help from INDIA. It amounts to free "ROOTI-KAPDE-AUR-MOKAN" for people of those poor country at free of cost due to avialality of URANIUM in their countru ( Which they can not use or do anythings)


[G]. Why this deal ?
If INDIA refused to this proposal, OPTION as in [F] above can not be materialised? Why? Since USA is WORLD DADA, it will influence other ( 125-50 = 75) countries not to allow INDIA for exercising OPTION [F]


[H].- Conclusion ?
INDIAN has no option but to sign the deal.

Answer 9

Thank you. Conservatives know that. Liberals don't want to. People, it has been DOCUMENTED to be true.

Answer 10

huh