U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday?

Question

And Al Gore's name came first in the Headlines and he didn't do crap these men have been working on this long before Al Gore came along. And buying Co2 Credits won't make him an eviromentalist I think it's sad the Headlines say his name at all. What do you think about this?

Answer 1

I think so as well. I think the IPCC should have been awarded the entire prize, and Gore should have been excluded entirely. But I suppose the Nobel Foundation is free to give the prize to whomever they like.

Answer 2

Gore has placed himself firmly in the global warming spotlight and is the face that both the media and the public identify with in respect of global warming; consequently the media are going to focus their attention on him.

Gore isn't a scientist, he's not done the research himself but acts as a messenger delivering the science of others, in a nutshell - that's all he's really done. It could have been anyone that stepped into the spotlight, it just happens to have been Gore.

It's the scientists (IPCC and otherwise) who have done the work. A lot of work, it totals over a million man-hours every week. So yes, they're the ones who deserve the credit but at the end of the day the IPCC is a faceless organisation, Gore is internationally recognised and I think many people are aware that Gore is nothing more than a messenger.

I know several people who have contributed directly and indirectly to the IPCC reports, none of them (so far) seem remotely bothered by the publicity that has been focused on Gore, the general feeling is that the Nobel Prize Committee's decision is a beneficial one that adds further credibility to the science of global warming and helps bring the message across to more people.

Answer 3

If it were the prize for physics or chemistry, I would not be at all happy, but looking through the list of previous peace prize winners, the decision doesn't seem to me a bad one.

Gore may not have done the science, but he has bought the scientific conclusions to the attention of a lot of people, and helped to raise its importance especially in the States.

Scientists as a breed are notoriously poor at communicating their findings to the general public, politically naive, and also their expression (particularly as it relates to doubt) is easily exploited by the media.

Because action on GW is a political issue, Gore was uniquely placed to do what he did. And whatever flaws his film had, he has done what nobody before him managed to do. Made GW into a household issue.

The IPCC people seem to share this view too, and Gore hasn't made a big fuss about receiving the prize. The $1.5m has gone straight into the foundation he set up to publicize GW.

It is a shame that our governments have proven so unwilling to act on the scientific evidence presented to them as near certainty, and wasted so much time in denial which will be paid for tenfold in future generations.

If you believe that the Prize Committee has lionized an undeserving man, I only ask this: that you look at the circumstances that made it needful for a man like Gore to take up the cause to begin with.

Answer 4

I believe the people who discovered Global Warming deserve the prize more, but the IPCC and Gore did more to bring it to the publics attention and get the public motivated to work together to solve it. That is a huge acomplishment that the scientists were not able to do without a spokeperson.

But it is still a matter of shooting the messenger and congratulating him at the same time.

Answer 5

There's two type of people here:

1- the scientists making the hard work, working in their labs, taking samples of ice on poles, writing papers etc
2-politicians, ambassadors, messengers, big and charismatic talkers making nice powerpoints from France to China, having lots of impact

It's almost impossible to find a person that does both. So these two types work together, one needs the other

For global warming, the world has decided:
1-IPCC
2-Al Gore

It's a great news, it's a great choice

Certainly Gore is a better role model for the world than
big-oil Bush always promoting pollution and war

Answer 6

provided by potential of an independent, unpolitical, autonomous committee The Norwegian Nobel Committee has desperate that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be provided to President Barack Obama for his dazzling efforts to augment worldwide international kinfolk and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has related particular value to Obama's imaginative and prescient of and artwork for a international without nuclear weapons. Obama has as President created a clean climate in worldwide politics. Multilateral international kinfolk has regained a powerful place, with emphasis on the function that the United countries and different worldwide institutions can play. talk and negotiations are favourite as gadgets for resolving even the main puzzling worldwide conflicts. The imaginative and prescient of a international loose from nuclear palms has powerfully inspired disarmament and palms administration negotiations. owing to Obama's initiative, the u . s . is now playing a extra constructive function in assembly the large climatic annoying circumstances the international is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be bolstered. in basic terms very infrequently has a guy or woman to an identical quantity as Obama captured the international's interest and given its human beings wish for a extra ideal destiny. His international kinfolk relies interior the theory that people who're to steer the international could do so on the foundation of values and attitudes that are shared by potential of the generic public of the international's inhabitants. For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that worldwide coverage and those attitudes for which Obama is now the international's maximum advantageous spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's attraction that "now may be the time for all human beings to take our share of accountability for a worldwide reaction to worldwide annoying circumstances."

Answer 7

I don't like the way the media reports this, either.

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.

Not to put the relative contributions here in context is bad reporting.

Answer 8

I think that the IPCC deserves the price a little bit more. But that´s just my personal opinion.

I know criticizing carbon credits is very popular in the US, especially since 95% of the people do not understand them and a lot of dishonest companies in the field are American.


DON´T YOU SEE THE LINK BETWEEN:
- Climate
- Resources
- Energy use
- Wealth and economy
- Society and countries
- Peace ?

A previous nobel of Peace was an African women who set large afforestation programms. So, what´s wrong?

Answer 9

We live in a media orientated world, that's just the way it is. I doubt the scientists mind, It's not a big del compared with the huge audience Gore has brought in. If nobody was going to hear about it then they might as well have studied the climate change on Mars!;-)

Answer 10

I think both are laughable, but the best if the Nobel committee for being so gullible.