Can We Nominate David Horowitz and Jim Gilchrist for the Nobel Peace Prize and Strip it From Al Gore?

Question

I just noticed on TV that David Horowitz performed the noble act of promoting Islamo-Fascist awareness week (that could help to save us all and bring about world peace), and Jim Gilchrist is involved in the Minuteman project (that could also help to save us all).

These are decent individuals truly committed to worthwhile, noble causes and are not like Mr. Gore, who has done nothing except to spread lies about "inventing the Internet," instigate recounts in Democrat-infested counties and shout in essence that "the sky is falling" (with his global warming fibs that are now being debunked by prominent scientists) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/11/scigore111.xml

I respectfully submit that Mr. Gore is doing more harm than good, and certainly should not be honored for the harm he's causing.

I'm thinking about inventing a new world peace prize and allowing the liberals to have their own, for their sicko champions of everything that's sick and rotten. What do you think I could name the new peace prize?

Answer 1

you could call it the Crazy Christian prize. it could be a statue of Ted Haggert holding a lightbulb(for meth smoking) in one hand, and a d!ldo in the other. You give us Christians bad names. what is up with you guys not caring about the environment? God gave us the planet. Don't you think we should take care of it? Maybe God made sure Al Gore won the prize so it would bring awareness to the forefront of politics. Maybe the devil is telling all of you that there is no problem, just live your life the way you want without any remorse. Get with the program. Don't rock the boat.

and on that web page it was a judge who was saying 9 of the things had insufficient evidence. he didn't say they were wrong, just they weren't proven in the movie. thats hardly debunking global warming.

Answer 2

Of course you forgot to mention that Peace Prize was shared with 100 peer-reviewed climate scientists. I suspect you don't know what peer reviewed means...it means that their research methods, and the data points compiled were scientifically valid...that is accurate and unimpeachable. The reviewers stand to make their scientific bones by finding flaws either with the way the experiments was conducted, or the way the data points were analysed. If after several dozen outside reviewers (without contact with other reviewers) check out the study and find it valid....it is accepted as 'scientifically' valid. Climate change is real...it isn't temporary...it's ongoing and a significant part of it is man-made. Certainly certain points can be challenged, but not the results of thousands of valid experiments and literally millions of valid data points. Ad hominum arguments don't make your point, dude.....even Bush has said this is real...not that his opinion means jack after fronting for a cabal of anti-scientific right wing bozos for the last seven years!

Answer 3

When the Nobel prize organization wants your opinion - they will ask.
I believe they made an excellent choice. You have your head in the sand and are at risk of going under.

Answer 4

Your tinfoil hat must have fallen off. How sad that you have bought into this divisive way of thinking. We are all Americans and we need to work together to save the planet. You are just pathetic.

Answer 5

They can be nominated. But i think Gore swallowed his prize.

Answer 6

How to name your proposal?
RESPECTFULLY: Dumbo Prize.

Answer 7

Sounds like sour grapes to me. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Answer 8

let Gore keep it. he is a legend in his own mind. he also gave us the Internet, cable television and buttered toast.