English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Don't tell me that a movie about a scientifically disputed "fact", Global Warming promotes peace. Did he stop a war anywhere? Has he prevented one warring faction from killing another faction? Did he end slavery anywhere? Did he feed a starving country? Has he united Arab and Israeli? Has he stopped world wide terrorism? Did he end communism? What exactly has he done in the name of "peace"? If you are going to use the movie in your answer be able to prove (use citations from credible sources) that it actually promotes peace. Otherwise you'll automatically get a thumbs down.

2007-10-15 17:07:31 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Stephen how does that promote peace? Why is it deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize?

2007-10-15 17:12:13 · update #1

dryheatdave of course you can prove your point with credible sources right?

2007-10-15 17:13:45 · update #2

puppy yap you are a moron. 16 years ago I was in Operation Desert Storm freeing Kuwait from Sadaam

2007-10-15 17:17:30 · update #3

wyldfyr so far you're running away with winning the 10 points. Unlike the rest of the liberal whiners you know how to present an argument...

2007-10-15 17:55:32 · update #4

Michael M your answer is a close second

2007-10-15 17:57:31 · update #5

Romare you did some good work but how does the movie promote peace?

2007-10-15 18:19:01 · update #6

25 answers

The Nobel Committee said global warming "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."

If global warming continues unabated, drinking water will become a rare resource, the famines around the world will increase, there will be millions of refugees displaced by the rising oceans. Fighting over resources that we now take for granted would most likely lead to wars as man struggles to survive in an increasingly hostile environment. Bringing people together to prevent these kind of catastrophes can only promote peace.

2007-10-15 17:34:01 · answer #1 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 3 2

I suppose one could call his campaign to blame all the world's problem's on America working for a sort of fraternity. Though it hardly seems very peaceful. I can actually understand why Yasser Arafat won the award, he actually promoted a peace congress with Israel after years of conflict. And Martin Luther King certainly promoted peace and fraternity, if not between the nations then within his own nation. But I just don't see how Al's slide show fits the definition.

2016-05-22 21:31:05 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Here's what the Nobel Prize committee says on their website:

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2007

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.

[I guess the idea is that the movie promotes addressing environmental issues that, if not addressed, can lead to wars over land, water, resources, etc. Refugee numbers are already way up due to droughts and resulting hunger, which causes inter-tribal and civil wars and violence.]

2007-10-15 18:00:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Let's look at it this way joey, Gore is a Vietnam vet, who won the popular vote in 2000 for President, filthy rich from investments, won an Academy Award, and now a Nobel Prize, and you, a little twit, like me, answering and asking questions on Yahoo, ... you're telling me HE'S a knob?

2007-10-15 17:26:46 · answer #4 · answered by charlie the 2na 3 · 5 2

The Nobel PeacePrize, despite its name, isn't exclusively given to persons who are working directly to stop or prevent conflicts. If you check, you'll find it is given as often, or even more often, for contributionns to the betterment of humanity.

Nor was it given to Gore simply on the basis of his movie. Instrad, he shares the prize with the UN agency on climate change for his DECADES of work promoting environmental awareness and policy.

Granted, the neoconservatives aren't aware of this--that's not surprising. They have spent so many years listening to their own propaganda they aren't aware of the fact that the rrest of the world has its own concerns--and that they and their agendas are not the be all and end all of what is happening in the world.

2007-10-15 17:17:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5 3

He never promoted peace, he was in the circle of the Clintons and their cronies, and still is. His movie was a typical Michael Moore type movie, just a bunch of propanganda bs, like all his gw facts.
global warming policies will mean more government, higher energy prices, and more costs and taxes to you!
"Despite increasing evidence that man-made CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas and contributor to climate change, politicians and others who wish to control our lives must maintain that it is.?

The reason? There's great gobs of money to be made from the sale of the climate change snake-oil remedies.

Al Gore, for example, has become a multi-millionaire selling his brand of snake oil. Big business is lining up the get its share of your tax money extorted from you to pay to fight a non-existent threat, members of Congress are getting ready to legislate anti-climate-change programs to fund projects in their districts, and scientists are living off huge grants to study global warming.

Gore probably can not even spell PEACE, much less promote it.

2007-10-15 18:04:33 · answer #6 · answered by lilly4 6 · 1 5

You arrogant yanky American. With that attitude you could watch your wife being sexually assaulted and, just because it's too hard to deal with, say 'My wife is inside on the couch - nothing is wrong - everything's going to be allllllllllllllllll right'. Have you prevented any wars, have you made any difference at all other than being an arrogant American? Go and dispute that you little pig.

2007-10-15 17:14:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6 4

He got the election STOLEN from him in 2000 by that piece of crap that calls himself our current president and he just walked away and let it go ...

...if that's not enough PEACE for a Nobel Prize, I don't know what is.

2007-10-15 17:31:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 4

Once all the earth's natural resources are used up there will be no peace. Just look at all the trouble oil has caused and it's not even gone yet. It'll be every man for himself. Chaos will be an understatement.

2007-10-15 17:12:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 7 4

Global climate change WILL lead to a MASSIVE refugee problem - there may end up being a billion people losing their homes, looking for help in other countries.

This will likely result in MASSIVE instability in many different countries. Take steps to motivate action on Global Climate Change, you have a mitigating effect on the refugee problem, you have a mitigating problem on worldwide instability.

2007-10-15 17:12:17 · answer #10 · answered by dryheatdave 6 · 7 4

fedest.com, questions and answers