Could someone please explain how a movie about global warming warrants a peace prize?

Question

Al Gore's hippocritical movie "An incovienient truth" recently won him and his team a Nobel peace prize. I just don't understand what exactly it is about promoting a flawed theory that earns recognition beside Gahndi.

Al Gore's hippocritical (because he alone is responsible for more polution in a month than most families in a year) movie "An incovienient truth" recently won him and his team a Nobel peace prize. I just don't understand what exactly it is about promoting a flawed theory that earns recognition beside Gahndi.

I'm hoping that a liberal Gore supporter can explain how reducing climate change could improve peace. He obviously couldn't win for science, because he didn't do any. Just promoted the popular theory.

Before anyone else beats me up about the "facts" known by the majority of scientists, remember that scientists once had people killed for saying the world wasn't flat.

We won't know the truth about global warming for decades, I just want to know what qualifies this movie for promoting peace.

I appreciate those of you who are attempting to give me a reasoned response.

Answer 1

I think this article answers your question perfectly.

"Climate wars threaten billions

More than 100 countries face political chaos and mass migration in global warming catastrophe

A total of 46 nations and 2.7 billion people are now at high risk of being overwhelmed by armed conflict and war because of climate change. A further 56 countries face political destabilisation, affecting another 1.2 billion individuals."

Answer 2

Well Mr Angry Viking,
If we humans could join our resources together out of concern for our Mother earth, we just might be able to go the extra mile and get concerned about the children of this earth. Now that would involve some serious thinking about the morality of the Military Industrial complex and the validity of creating wars as testing grounds for the produce of the armaments industry which currently costs this planet more in hard cash (to say nothing of the costs in human tragedy and damage to land and property) than it would cost to feed every single human being for the rest of their lives. Mr Gore may not be perfect, I would assume he's not, but he's hitchin his wagon up to a worthy cause and it's a step in the right direction for such a cause to be pronounced worthy of recognition and respect.
What'r you doing for the people of this earth?
I hope your not still hankering for the old viking days of unrestricted rape and pillage!

Answer 3

Clinton-Gore have done more damage to the environment in their first 4 years
than
Reagan and Bush did in their combined 12 years (by David Brower).

Gore and Clinton's position on climate change was to make sure that the Kyoto
agreement
doesn't call for more than a 5% reduction in fossil fuel use despite the fact
that all credible
scientists say a 70% reduction is necessary to avoid irreversible climate
change.

The result: A teethles US-dominated Kyoto Protocole without US!

Answer 4

The Nobel prize wasn't just due to his movie. Al Gore has been an avid activist against climate change for decades. He was one of the politicians that thrust forward and promoted the idea of tax cuts for hybrid vehicles. He has spent most of his life devoted to this cause. Does anyone remember the 2004 election? Saving the environment and getting the US off of foreign oil and onto sustainable, renewable U.S. resources was one of his top priorities. The Nobel prize is for recognition of all the service he has given. Look at President Jimmy Carter, he didnt even win the peace prize while in office either. It takes decades of hard work to achieve this goal.

Answer 5

Welll Mr Gore is perceived as a noble American who tries to reduce pollution all over the world. It is not hippocritical that we should try to save energy - it is not hippocritical that many people ( also in the US) suffer from pollution. So actually Mr Gore has done more than the incumbent president to push this issue in the US. The incumbent president is just concerned about his wars. Even if there was no climate change - we should try to reduce pollution. E.G to avoid acid rain.

Answer 6

If you tell me how, "you risk damaging the speakers with too little power."

Here's the skinny - http://www.bcae1.com/2ltlpwr.htm

Setting the gain right and you can have a 100 watt amp push a 500 watt sub with no problems. You only get 100 watts to the sub, but it will work.

The purpose of the gain (input sensitivity) is to match the signal volts RMS coming from the source (CD player, etc.) to the input of the amp.

Here is a guide that will help you set the gain correctly http://www.datafilehost.com/download.php?file=6d26c621

You'll need a multi-meter (AC voltmeter), Microsft Excel and a way to burn an audio CD from an MP3.

Most of what you need to know about car audio is here http://spkrbox1.spaces.live.com

Answer 7

I'm with you man!

Hipocritical or not, the fact is that he has done a remarkable job educating people about the big environmental problem we might have comming.... HOWEVER, I don't understand how this meant a PEACE price for him. Think they should've created a special price or a recognition for his job, not give him the Peace Nobel.

Answer 8

Flawed meaning that you don't understand it?
The movie may have it's faults and Gore too (who is perfect?). Yet it sends a strong message and makes people aware of the problem.
Just because you don't understand squat of the science behind the theory doesn't mean it is flawed. We are cutting forests at dazzling speed, we're converting stored carbon into carbondioxide as if there is no tomorrow, and our water management creates havoc in our nature preserves. Photosynthesis simply can't keep up with CO2 generation, and there is absolutely no doubt that CO2 in the atmosphere retains heat. What is so hard to understand here?

Answer 9

Global warming is a lie. The average surface temperature of Mars is increasing at the same rate as the Earth. This is a result of solar cycles.

Answer 10

The prize was actually shared with several other people. I have to agree with you though, it seems odd that a prize for Peace would be awarded for a film on the evironment. I find it rather hard to understand why he got an oscar for the same film and after reading the book of the same title, I figure it must be because they couldn't give him an award for science.