Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize 2007

[Raesene]

just heard it on the Radio.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Pics or it didn't happen.

[ArcturusMengsk]

So it did, at that.

[Edi]

And in other news his documentary just got a court order against it in Britain ordering that if it is shown in schools, equal time must be given to global warming critics "because there is no scientific basis to several claims in it" or some such bullshit on part of the judge. Basically, there are a couple of things that are outdated due to new data or are minor nitpicks at best, thus anti-global warming kooks must be given equal fucking time.

Sorry about the lack of links, that was in one of the free newspapers here today.

[ArcturusMengsk]

And in other news his documentary just got a court order against it in Britain ordering that if it is shown in schools, equal time must be given to global warming critics "because there is no scientific basis to several claims in it" or some such bullshit on part of the judge. Basically, there are a couple of things that are outdated due to new data or are minor nitpicks at best, thus anti-global warming kooks must be given equal fucking time.

Sorry about the lack of links, that was in one of the free newspapers here today.

In other words, conservatives are using their normal tactic of "let's hijack the trend towards equality in social discourse to promote our own self-serving pseudoscientific rubbish". No surprise there.

[Raesene]

And in other news his documentary just got a court order against it in Britain ordering that if it is shown in schools, equal time must be given to global warming critics "because there is no scientific basis to several claims in it" or some such bullshit on part of the judge. Basically, there are a couple of things that are outdated due to new data or are minor nitpicks at best, thus anti-global warming kooks must be given equal fucking time.

Sorry about the lack of links, that was in one of the free newspapers here today.

found that at another board

UK Court : Schools Must Warn of Bias in 'An Inconvenient Truth'
By Lynn Davidson

Conveniently, the American media is largely ignoring a significant statement from a UK High Court judge who said Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" promotes "partisan political views" and the schools should treat it as such.

As a result the British government was forced to rewrite their website and their "guidance" and will need to issue a warning before showing the film.

As NewsBusters reported, truck driver, part-time school official and father of two Stewart Dimmock brought a High Court action to ban the film from UK schools, claiming it is "unfit for schools" because it contains scientific inaccuracies, "sentimental mush" and is politically biased.

The movie was distributed to more than 3500 schools for children aged 11 to 14-year-olds in "Climate Change Packs."

Even though the wire services AP and UPI covered this story, it has largely gone unreported in America, unlike in England. UK's Daily Mail covered the story in this October 3 article (bold mine throughout):

Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.

Mr Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore's Oscar-winning film does promote 'partisan political views'.

This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.

The article actually addressed the lack of facts backing up "An Inconvenient Truth":

But during the three-day hearing the court heard that the critically-acclaimed film contains a number of inaccuracies, exaggerations and statements about global warming for which there is currently insufficient scientific evidence."

This is rather amazing news, considering how the movie is thought of as environmental scripture. While it was a win for science, it wasn't a total success. Hearing about "An Inconvenient Truth's" scientific inaccuracies won't stop the British government from continuing to teach it to kids:

Children's Minister Kevin Brennan said last night: 'The judge's decision is clear that schools can continue to use An Inconvenient Truth as part of their teaching on climate change in accordance with the amended guidance, which will be available online today.

'We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the judge to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position on a number of scientific points raised in the film.'

[Dartzap]

That's just the British education system as a whole, we have to be taught both points of views. It's been like that for many-a-year. This kind of case has appeared before, so it was probably a matter if precedent.

[ray245]

That's just the British education system as a whole, we have to be taught both points of views. It's been like that for many-a-year. This kind of case has appeared before, so it was probably a matter if precedent.

At least, the brits and us don't have a narrow point of view like certain americans.

The documentary is biased to a small extend, a VERY VERY small extend, as what the teachers has taught us for O level and A level history.

[salm]

That's just the British education system as a whole, we have to be taught both points of views. It's been like that for many-a-year. This kind of case has appeared before, so it was probably a matter if precedent.

So what´s the difference to creationists wanting "both sides" to be taught?

[Dartzap]

That's just the British education system as a whole, we have to be taught both points of views. It's been like that for many-a-year. This kind of case has appeared before, so it was probably a matter if precedent.

So what´s the difference to creationists wanting "both sides" to be taught?

I honestly have no idea. It;s why I happen to be trying to get my head around our legal system at Uni It's generally a matter of the judges digression, so it could just be a matter of one judges interpretation over anouther.

[Knife]

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

Anyone want to take a stab at telling how this advanced peace? The Nobel Prize is becoming as meaningless as a fucking Academy Award or Times Man of the Year crap.

[Glocksman]

Here's a Times article on the UK court ruling.

Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

“It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film,” he said in his ruling. “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-Presi-dent, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.

“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”

The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the Government can continue with its plan to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views.

The Government’s decision to show the film in secondary schools had come under attack from Stewart Dim-mock, a school governor in Kent and a member of political group the New Party, who accused the Government of brainwashing children.

The first mistake made by Mr Gore, said Mr Justice Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps.

The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.

Mr Justice Burton added: “The ar-mageddon scenario he predicts, inso-far as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence”, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case.

Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”. The melting of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was “mainly attributable to human-induced climate change”.

The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.

Similarly, the judge took issue with the former Vice-President of the United States for attributing coral bleaching to climate change. Separating the direct impacts of climate change and other factors was difficult, the judgment concluded.

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

— A High Court judge since 1998, Sir Michael Burton, 60, was president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal from 2002 to 2005. He stood in local elections for Labour in Kensington and Chelsea in 1971; Stratford upon Avon in the General Election in 1974; and for the SDP in Greater London Council elections in 1981. Educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, his wife died in 1992 leaving him to bring up four daughters

The speech, the film, the book

— An Inconvenient Truth is the third-highest grossing documentary ever in the United States, making more than $23 million (£12 million)

— It has so far earned $49 million at the box office worldwide It was shown at the Sundance Film Festival and won an Oscar this year for Best Documentary, Features

— The film is based on a lavishly-illustrated public lecture that Mr Gore has given more than 1,000 times in the US and elsewhere It was directed by Davis Guggenheim, who has also directed episodes of the hit television shows Deadwood, The Shield and 24

— The companion book written by Gore has been on The New York Times bestseller list since June 11, 2006

— Mr Gore has been nominated jointly with Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his global warming campaign, including making the documentary

— President Bush, when asked whether he would watch the film, responded: Doubt it"

— The documentary has featured on The Simpsons, South Park, Futurama and even in an Ozzy Osborne song, The Almighty Dollar

Posted without comment.

[Beowulf]

It hasn't advanced peace? Then again, they've given out awards for stuff that hasn't advanced peace before. E.g. Yasser Arafat et al.

[K. A. Pital]

The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.

Millenia? I heard some islands are already drowned due to sea level rise. Should it take thousand years? Any comment from people well-knowing the warming theoretical base?

[hongi]

On a somewhat related note, I got my latest National Geographic issue with a global warming spread and it scared me. If global average temperatures increase by 5 degrees over the next couple of centuries, 'we' and by this I mean our descendants could be facing the extinction of 40% of all species. 40 freaking percent.

We're guaranteed a 2 degree rise over the next century even if we drastically reduce CO2 emissions.

[Glocksman]

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

Anyone want to take a stab at telling how this advanced peace? The Nobel Prize is becoming as meaningless as a fucking Academy Award or Times Man of the Year crap.

Well, according the the criteria established by Alfred Nobel, the prize is supposed to go to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.".

I suppose you could stretch it and say that by fighting global warming, Gore is preventing future conflicts over resources.
Conversely though, you could argue that global warming will increase crop yields and that allowing it would be in the promotion of peace.

The global warming debate aside, the connection between Nobel's stated goals and Gore's climate work is tenuous at best.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Nobel Peace prizes are more a political statements than anything else. Even the prizes for the sciences are ridden with politics.

[Glocksman]

Nobel Peace prizes are more a political statements than anything else. Even the prizes for the sciences are ridden with politics.

Rigoberta Menchu's 1992 prize for her fraudulent autobiography is a perfect example.

[Battlehymn Republic]

This is ridiculous. It's truly becoming a vacuous popularity contest. What the hell does climate change have to do with peace, directly?

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, it certainly isn't physics or medicine. If it's worth commendation of a Nobel Prize but doesn't fit any of the categories, then it probably goes into "Peace". "Peace" is a broader category than "physics" or "medicine".

Hrm, I wonder what people would think if a Nobel Peace Prize winner ran for President.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, it certainly isn't physics or medicine. If it's worth commendation of a Nobel Prize but doesn't fit any of the categories, then it probably goes into "Peace". "Peace" is a broader category than "physics" or "medicine".

Hrm, I wonder what people would think if a Nobel Peace Prize winner ran for President.

You can be sure that the Conservatives will do what they need to do to screw the election.

Rigoberta Menchu's 1992 prize for her fraudulent autobiography is a perfect example.

As was last year's winner who was the IAEA chief and another Iranian if I am not wrong and the literaure prize that went to a Turkish writer who nearly got jailed for "insulting Turkishness".

[Sriad]

There is a pretty solid Peace Prize trend to recognize people who help the disadvantaged and poorest citizens of the world, which are exactly the people who will be (and currently are) most effected by global warming.

[Nephtys]

Hrm, I wonder what people would think if a Nobel Peace Prize winner ran for President.

He'll lose. Any wuss who wins 'peace' prizes for these 'international' foreigners isn't going to have the GUTS it takes for AMERICA to take out our thousands of enemies trying to kill us. (Cue song: "America! Fuck yeah!")

(/Midwestern Right Wing Inbred Mentality)

[Metatwaddle]

Well, it certainly isn't physics or medicine. If it's worth commendation of a Nobel Prize but doesn't fit any of the categories, then it probably goes into "Peace". "Peace" is a broader category than "physics" or "medicine".

Hrm, I wonder what people would think if a Nobel Peace Prize winner ran for President.

As far as I can tell, "peace" in the Nobel Prize sense doesn't really mean "peace" but rather doing a service to the human race.

The Nobel panel apparently thinks that Gore did the greatest service to the human race of anyone this year, by going on his global warming kick, which has woken people up at least a little. They seem to expect that because Gore has woken people up, we will be more likely to see a change US and other nations' policies on regulation of carbon emissions, research for cleaner energy, etc. Whether or not this is true remains to be seen.

And yeah, sometimes the committee gets things wrong, or at the very least gives the Peace Prize to people who don't deserve it. Menchu is probably one (though the committee said that the prize was not primarily awarded for her autobiography). Mother Teresa is another, IMO. Sometimes they do get it right - as when they awarded the prize to, say, Nelson Mandela in the 1990s, or Aung San Suu Kyi more recently. Did Gore do a great service to the human race by making An Inconvenient Truth? Maybe. I don't know. But it's impossible to argue that his efforts were directly related to peace.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Gore wouldn't be the first Peace Prize winner to run for office, just the first in over 100 years. Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel Prize in 1906 for his role in negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese war. He then ran for President in 1912 and lost.

Doncha just love Presidential trivia?