Do you wonder why Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize?

Question

I think this article explains why they won a peace prize for their work on this environmental issue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/04/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

"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.

This stark warning will be outlined by the peace group International Alert in a report, A Climate of Conflict, this week. Much of Africa, Asia and South America will suffer outbreaks of war and social disruption as climate change erodes land, raises seas, melts glaciers and increases storms, it concludes. Even Europe is at risk.

'Climate change will compound the propensity for violent conflict, which in turn will leave communities poorer and less able to cope with the consequences of climate change'"

Any thoughts?

punker - maybe try reading the whole question (and links therein) next time. Forgive me for not checking on your Glenn Beck reference, but he makes me want to hurl.

Answer 1

For all the people who claim that global warming will not cause political instability and war. The following people disagree with you.

- Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (ret), Military Advisory Board Chairman, former Army chief of staff and current president of the Association of the United States Army
- Adm. Frank "Skip" Bowman, USN (ret), former director of naval nuclear propulsion at the Naval Sea Systems Command
- Lt. Gen. Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (ret), former deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, Headquarters U.S. Air Force
- Vice Adm. Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (ret), former chief of naval research and head of the Navy Meteorology and Oceanography Command
- Gen. Paul J. Kern, USA (ret), former commanding general, U.S. Army Materiel Command
- Adm. T. Joseph Lopez, USN (ret), former commander-in-chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and of Allied Forces, Southern Europe
- Adm. Donald L. Pilling, USN (ret), former vice chief of naval operations and Navy chief financial officer
- Adm. Joseph W. Prueher, USN (ret), former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Command and former U.S. ambassador to China
- Vice Adm. Richard H. Truly, USN (ret), former NASA administrator, shuttle astronaut and the first commander of the Naval Space Command
- Gen. Charles F. "Chuck" Wald, USAF (ret), former deputy commander, USEUCOM and director of Strategic Planning and Policy at Headquarters U.S. Air Force
- Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, USMC (ret), former commander, CENTCOM

"Climate Change Poses Serious Threat to U.S. National Security"

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-16-2007/0004565995&EDATE=

Answer 2

From the NobelPrize.org website:

"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"

Below is a link where you can access a 4-minute video of the announcement of the award. The speaker cited potential "threats," "living conditions," "migration," "competition," "heavy burdons" and the "increased danger of violent conflict" down the line due to global warming. They also cited the "sharper focus" needed to protect our environment.

People bringing up past recipients -- Jimmy Carter was a better President than most realize, considering he didn't receive proper support from his own party, long story -- without context do a disservice to an outstanding organization. We're not privy to the selection process, for the most part, and I'm sure it is used as a statement, but that doesn't make the recipients any less deserving.

The award was intended, I believe, to help further legitimize the broader issue and allow people to begin to recast themselves from being part of the problem, to becoming part of the solution. The first step was given to us. The rest of the path is ours to follow.

Answer 3

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes which are decided by scientists and mathematicians, the Nobel Peace Prize is decided by a group of socialist politicians who award the prize as a way to further their political beliefs.

It's done as a political statement. That's why Arafat won one for "lasting peace in the middle east." Koffi Annan won one and he was involved in the Oil for Food scandal. Even our worst president, Jimmy Carter won one for actually causing less peace around the world. Now Gore wins one for lying to the world about climate change. The prize hasn't been taken seriously for decades now. Sad, but true.

As for the rest of your question, it's all a bunch of propaganda garbage. No one with an IQ higher than their shoe size believes any of that junk. And no one reads the Guardian anymore if they want the truth. Try pedaling this garbage to morons if you want anyone to believe you. We're much too smart to fall for that.

Answer 4

YES!!! All the time! It makes no sense. A Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded for something that someone has done in the past to help other people for the cause of peace.
Take, for example, one of the other (I don't exactly know how the whole thing works, but for lack of a better word) candidates for the Peace Prize (and I can't remember her name). She worked to save hundreds of people from the Nazi's, and was captured by them, tortured, starved, and had all this other crap done to her, but she still kept at it. She SAVED hundreds of people!
What has Al Gore done? He's told us that we need to buy flourescent light bulbs and Hybrid cars to keep the earth from warming about 1 degree in the next century. He CLAIMS that, if the earth does warm, the consequences will be catastrophic, but NO ONE knows that for sure, and many people believe it to be unlikely. He hasn't really helped anyone, and yet they award him the Nobel Peace Prize. And, may I add, it is BULLCRAP that Climate Change will cause wars. It has NOTHING to do with wars. It's just a lame excuse to further a political cause.

Answer 5

Tomcat-Mr Arafat signed a contract saying he was part of a peace process. When it became clear he was not involved in promoting peace at all, the award was taken away. Quite a different case than a guy who's trying to bring attention to global issues.
'Dr.' Jello, I've seen enough of your responses and the rebuttals to know you only tell half the story and are extremely unreliable.
Why you two are so adamant there aren't problems that can be worked on, is beyond me.

Answer 6

All hot (shooting) wars at this time have noting to do with climate change. They are only about religion and the dominance of islam. Starvation like in Danfur are weapons of war and have nothing to do with any food shortage.

It isn't surprising to see some use opportunities like this to apply misinformation on some tragedy to to further their cause.

Currently water levels are less than what they were in 1840's, temperature hasn't been warmer since 1998, and since it's winter, the polar ice cap is growing once again.

I wouldn't put it past the true believers to start wars in order to further their cause. After all, what are a few dark skin bodies if their sacrifice helps the greater good of swaying the public to believe "global warming" is real, right?

Answer 7

Don't worry, Bush has assured us of his plans on GW. go to -
www.StupidVideos.us

Answer 8

I am still wondering why master terrorist Yasser Arafat won it, but everybody makes mistakes.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_arafat_nobel.php

EDIT:

Madonelle, it was clear to the majority of the world that Arafat was not interested in peace at anytime of his life.
.
.