digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

nobelpeaceprize.org — 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.... Draft Gore Now! http://draftgore.com/

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • TheDHC, on 11/08/2007, -218/+483Well deserved
    • WilliamDavis, on 11/04/2007, -117/+48Why? Because there's nobody working for peace anywhere? Maybe I don't understand what the peace prize is for.
      • art42, on 11/04/2007, -20/+59" 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." Norwegian Nobel Committee
        http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lau_announce2007.ht ...
        • WilliamDavis, on 10/15/2007, -37/+18I can get with that reasoning to some extent, but why give the highest award to someone talking about something that may cause an interruption of peace in an undetermined future and for undetermined people? There's plenty going on now that could be recognized. And/or that needs to be recognized.
          • michaelb1, on 10/25/2007, -7/+16George Bush should have won the peace prize for his selfless work to bring peace to the entire world.

            (vomits)
          • delafere, on 10/25/2007, -4/+1Like?
          • UglyBunny, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2What you have to say is valid, but I think it is a bit short sighted. The kinds of problems that could be caused by global climate change are much larger than most people think. Imagine you're a farmer in Africa and for several seasons your crops have failed because the weather in your region has changed. So your country starts importing most of its food when it used to be the one exporting its surplus food. Not only are they spending money on importing food but they're also not making any money. The economy goes to crap and a radical reformist is elected to "save" the nation. They choose to invade a historical enemy who just so happens to be enjoying record food production rates because of the very same climate change. This could happen in Africa, this could happen in Asia, this could happen in South America, this could happen in Europe, this could happen in North America. Global climate change could cause global conflict.
        • donjuan571, on 10/15/2007, -30/+22Ha you get dugg down for stating the truth. THEY JUST GAVE HIM AN AWARD FOR SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T EVEN HAPPEN. Not to mention that his documentary was ripe with inconsistencies and false statistics labeled as "inconvenient truths." In other words they lied to scare people.

          The Nobel prize has lost its meaning ever since they gave it to a murderer named Yasser Arafat..does anyone remember that?
        • SpykerSpeed, on 10/13/2007, -17/+11There are a lot of "mays" in that statement by the Committee. But yeah, I agree with donjuan571. The Nobel prize doesn't really mean anything anymore.
        • sugablonde, on 10/25/2007, -3/+2COME ON PEOPLE, don't you realize that global warming is a NATURAL occurring thing?!?! Our world is consistently changing!! We can't stop global warming and it's retarded that someone got a PEACE award for a environmental issue. Sure, he is trying to make people more environmentally sound, but global warming/cooling is going to happen whether people like it or not...get used to it! If you wanna fight something, fight for the electric car that was destroyed a while back http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectricca ...
        • UglyBunny, on 10/25/2007, -1/+3@sugablonde

          Yes, global warming occurs naturally and is indeed NECESSARY for life, but what you're missing is the fact that we as humans have impacted the environment so much we've accelerated the rate at which the earth is warming. It is now warming much more rapidly than it ever has before. Take a look at this website:

          http://ic.ucsc.edu/~wxcheng/envs23/lecture7/
          on that page you'll find the lecture notes for a class I took last spring. You might find it both interesting and informative. Especially read the part regarding the "human enhanced greenhouse effect."
      • KMye, on 10/12/2007, -28/+19Agreed WD. Instead of drawing attention to an issue that may be a contributer to conflict in the future, why wouldn't they give it to the Save Darfur alliance, recognizing people who are working to resolve a current bloody atrocity and at the same time draw more, much-needed attention to it. It's shameful.
      • brufleth, on 10/13/2007, -11/+14No, you clearly do not know what the peace prize is for.
        • BillyBIanks, on 10/14/2007, -5/+10Obviously it's for raising Manbearpig (MBP) awareness.
      • moofer, on 10/12/2007, -32/+20Al Gore invented global warming.
    • djh816, on 10/15/2007, -59/+33Gore '08!
      • onwardknave, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7For head of the EPA, maybe. He's still a party loyalist. Most Democrats will walk in lock-step with Pelosi and Clinton -- I think only Kucinich and maybe Gravel have progressive enough ideals to satisfy the true Left. Clinton (and in many respects, Gore) are extremely centrist or slightly right-wing -- the Neocons have pushed the United States' center of political gravity so far to the right by redefining the center as "ultra-left." John Oliver from the Daily Show had a segment about how words have been redefined, like "torture," "genocide," and "Mission Accomplished." Don't get me wrong, though -- I think Al Gore has done something to change the world for the better.
      • Rob1430, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i think it would be more realistic to say something along the lines of Gore '12 or possibly '16. as unfortunately long a time as that is to wait. just definitely not this time around.
    • StepCousin, on 10/17/2007, -104/+69Well deserved, huh? He's the biggest fossil fuel consumer out there. ***** that halfwit. The only reason he pretends to give a damn about the environment is because he needed a gimmick. He's an insufferable bore.

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
      • annonimality, on 10/13/2007, -21/+53Right, out of everybody in the entire world, Al Gore consumes the most fossil fuel.
        • Antwan718, on 10/12/2007, -30/+19No but his electric bill is over 3000 a month so
          • pintomp3, on 10/15/2007, -11/+22because he chooses to pay extra for greener energy and has his office there.
          • brufleth, on 10/13/2007, -5/+14So? It isn't like he is personally leaving hair dryers running 24/7 in his house. As stated his office is there and he probably uses electric power for things people normally use on site fossil fuels for (such as heating). Doing so is actually environmentally probably more friendly but it isn't cost effective.
          • SwingCorey, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Using electric instead of propane is more environmentally friendly? Only if it comes from solar or wind power (neither of which are present at his mansion/compound).

            Where do you think electricity comes from? It doesn't just magically appear at the power plant - most of it is from coal or oil... FOSSIL FUELS!
            Not to mention the fact that, when it is produced, there is waste heat energy, and when it is transmitted along those miles of power lines, energy is lost as well.

            Electricity is one of the least efficient ways of heating a house. I wonder if Big Al knows this, or if he's just stuffing his face with more hot pockets from his electric oven.
          • jcm267, on 10/13/2007, -8/+6He only switched to green energy after he was called out as the hypocrite that he is
          • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@SwingCorey

            http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/al_gore_ge ...

            Don't let facts stand in the way of a good rant though.
        • StepCousin, on 10/13/2007, -19/+11Sure, go ahead and excuse it.

          Gore reminds me of televangelists. They preach a bunch of ***** all day and suck dick at night.
        • michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14debunked. Those are old lies.
          All his energy comes from renewable resources so it doesn't really matter how much he uses.
          If I use 10gigawatts of solar and wind power guess what! There's more ***** wind and sunlight and it doesn't pollute.
          • StepCousin, on 10/15/2007, -13/+5Old lies? Prove it.
          • jcm267, on 10/17/2007, -5/+9They aren't old lies. He only switched to green energy at home after the column was printed in USA Today. He still flies around in his private jet.
          • cyberwiz01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wow! You can power 8.264 flux capacitors!
      • SwingCorey, on 10/15/2007, -25/+16exactly - Gore doesn't know what the f*** he's talking about. The UK govt. even cited 11 factual errors in Gore's "masterpiece"
        That's worthy of a prize or 2 from the Left.
        • DooM, on 10/24/2007, -11/+12All of these so-called 'factual errors' were minor and don't change in the slightest the overall message of the film. Plus, MOST of them weren't proved to be errors at all - the government simply said that they couldn't prove it one way or the other in court, so the opposing party could say that. And Al Gore wasn't in court.
          • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Typical is Gore's talk about the subject of the speed of the melting of the Greenland ice cap. In order for the process to take "thousands of years," it has to be a steady melting rate. But what about the example of the Antarctic glaciers, that melted much more quickly than anybody thought? If you look at what happening in Greenland, you see that there are "icequakes" every day, as water begins to flow beneath the surface, undermining the solid structure. All he said was, what IF that were to melt within 50 years? To give you an idea of how big that would be, he gave the example of the WTC site being under 20 feet of water. He wasn't "predicting" anything. He was saying that we don't know how fast that melting will be. Yet this is being cited as an inaccuracy.
          • StepCousin, on 10/13/2007, -2/+2DooM,

            I guess you're saying that Al Gore is a liar....a weaver of tall tales.

            That jibes with the 'inventing the internet' thing.
          • DooM, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1@stepcousin: A) The 'invented the internet' thing has been proven over and over again to have just been MADE UP by right wingers - he never said it, but you keep repeating it like a good cultist. B) That's not what I said at all.
        • lharrod, on 10/24/2007, -8/+15I love it! Now, the Nobel Prize Committee is part of "the left." wtf?? Basically, any person or any group that does something that disagrees with you is 'the left." It's that tired old us-versus-them mentality of the weak-minded.
        • StepCousin, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2@lharrod

          You probably believe that the MSM is objective too, don't you? You're a good little robot.
      • Pwelborn1, on 10/24/2007, -8/+16Al Gore is so full of himself and his politics. If you really look at the scientific facts they don't point to ANY human contributions to global warming but since that doesn't help Gore's political agenda he has to find people who will give him the results he needs so that he can fly around on private jets telling people to reduce their "Carbon Footprint". What a prick.
    • robbielaney, on 10/16/2007, -85/+62For what . . . raising awareness over something that is not man-made? I'm going to go public with a fake cause and see if I can win a Nobel Prize. Al Gore, what an idiot! I wish that some of you diggers would actually do some research! How did we come out of the last ice age if we didn't have global warming? Nobody was driving SUV's then and Al Gore wasn't spending 20 x what the normal American spends in power cost. You don't think that that giant ball in the sky that one million Earths inside of could be affecting the planet in some way? Give me a break. It is all a big money making scheme and you IDIOTS are making Al Gore a hero for deceiving you. Look into it. The majority of temperature increases in the 19th century were from the first half (where the car was far less prevalent).
      • n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -45/+27I wish I could digg you up a thousand times, it is good to see a little common sense on here...
        • archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If by "common sense" you mean "ignoring all relevant scientific data", then yes, you're right.
          AGW deniers are more dangerous than terrorists.
      • AdobeWan, on 10/12/2007, -27/+47Al Gore is a highly educated and compassionate person. That he is getting recognition and yea, probably money, doesn't automatically make his motivation so. The real sadness is that meat-head, mouth-breathing fanatics like YOU are capable of ignoring the clearly obvious damage we're doing to the earth. ***** global warming, and ***** temperature: just look at our skies, our oceans, and our forests. It's what I like to classify as "duh obvious." But your hatred for someone who is genuinely trying to raise awareness in a NON-POLITICAL, NON-JUDGMENTAL, and NON-THREATENING way is simply poison. I hope one day you grow out of it.
        • philipl411, on 10/12/2007, -34/+12How is he highly educated? Didn't he flunk out of divinity school? As far as global warming there are very educated men, of science (BTW, who did not flunk out of divinity school.) who disagree with the theory that man is causing global warming.
          • alex7575, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Yeah, the same ones that are trying to push for Creationism?
        • cbr7, on 10/12/2007, -8/+42Gore graduated Harvard with honors, when he finished that he joined Vanderbilt law school but dropped out from that so he would have the time to run for Congress, election which he won.

          So yes, I would say he's educated.
        • gummih, on 10/13/2007, -4/+25Name me five educated men of science who disagree with the theory that man is causing global warming.
          • sockdemon, on 10/15/2007, -23/+9I like how people assume all scientists are experts on climate change. A physicist, while certainly a scientist, whose word is of definite merit in matters of physics, holds no more weight in his opinion than does the common man when climate change is discussed.
          • gropo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24"A physicist, while certainly a scientist, whose word is of definite merit in matters of physics, holds no more weight in his opinion than does the common man when climate change is discussed."
            Yeah because a comprehensive knowledge of fluids, volumes and energy transfers doesn't apply to global climate change at all. The contortions you guys go through to discredit the high probability of human-caused global change is becoming truly painful and increasingly depressing to observe.
            You have to wonder what the motivation deep down inside you is, the little voice that makes you wince your eyes, plug your ears and go "LALALALA I LIKE THE THEORY THAT SAYS I CAN GO ON LIVING WITHOUT ANY PRECOGNITION OF THE IMPACT OF HUMAN EVENTS ON OUR PLANET"
          • veotho, on 10/16/2007, -6/+131) Professor Tim Ball, Dept of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
            2) Professor Nir Shaviv, Dept of Physics, University of Jerusalem
            3) Professor Ian Clark, Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
            4) Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action
            and
            5) Professor John Christy, Lead Author IPCC
          • DooM, on 10/16/2007, -3/+11So 1) a guy who real environmental scientists say isn't qualified to speak on the subject, 2) a guy with an alternative hypothesis that is hotly contested (your best example), 3) a guy , 4) a guy who AGREED with a politician about global warming contributing to flooding only disagreeing on the degree, and 5) a guy who said, and I quote: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

            I'll give you .5 people, you have 4.5 to go.
          • vikingcoder, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3A scientist of any discipline is more knowledgeable on how to distinguish trivial canards, outright myths and politicized hyperbole from scientific evidence than "the common man".
        • moin1097, on 10/17/2007, -31/+11"But your hatred for someone who is genuinely trying to raise awareness in a NON-POLITICAL(He condemn Bush 3 time in his movie. Sour grapes.), NON-JUDGMENTAL,(He condemns the US 7 times in his movie. We wont worship as the god he thinks he is.) and NON-THREATENING (He makes it sound like if I don't give up my car today then by tomorrow I'll drown) way is simply poison.

          What flavor is the kool-aid today?
          • alex7575, on 10/15/2007, -4/+10You're saying that Gore is a fear monger? I think it's safe to say you voted for Bush,
            And all YOUR research shows that global warming is not happening?
        • ownwonnow, on 10/17/2007, -4/+2NON-POLITICAL, NON-JUDGMENTAL, NON-THREATENING way? What in the sweet ***** are you smoking? A Very Convenient Possibility is the antithesis of the three qualities that you've just described. It is designed to force the issue amongst the world's political leaders and condemn the American way of life by telling everyone that if we don't do what algore says, we're all going to die a horrible, miserable death.
      • annonimality, on 10/15/2007, -17/+11"that giant ball in the sky that one million Earths inside of could be affecting the planet in some way?" - spoken like a true Bush conservative.
        • takamalak, on 10/15/2007, -10/+3"Sun is hot. Hot bad. Hot hurt me." - a true Bush conservative.
          • robbielaney, on 10/13/2007, -2/+3And once again, where did I speak about Bush?
        • robbielaney, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Where did I speak about Bush?
          • Swift2, on 10/15/2007, -2/+2A sizable part of the denial literature comes straight out of the Houston Oil Axis, the one that elected Bush. The Axis of Oil we're fighting for in Iraq. The Axis of Oil that doesn't make a peep as Bush has sent in 30-year-old political minders to censor the senior scientists of the EPA.
          • LeeSoong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You spoke just like Bush - when you got your math calculations all wrong - LOL.


            The 100 day Iraq War - MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !
      • WilliamDavis, on 10/13/2007, -4/+16"For what . . . raising awareness over something that is not man-made?"
        Whether it's man made or not, it may be something we have to deal with later. Hurricanes aren't man-made, but people start taking actions if they see one coming.
        I surely don't think it's peace prize material, though.
      • gropo, on 10/16/2007, -6/+16"The majority of temperature increases in the 19th century were from the first half (where the car was far less prevalent)."
        Less prevalent, as in didn't come about until the last 10 years of the century. Coal burning bloomed throughout that century I might add, and then waned in to the 1920's. So, what makes you think we should consider the keyboard diarrea of some internet ***** that can't even get his centuries straight? Given a choice between you and your ilk, or a bunch of physical scientists with PhD's... Hmm tough decision.
      • LeeSoong, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3More Importantly - When is the NEXT Ice Age Coming ?

        And where can we still live and get a good tan when that time comes?
    • SystmBetatester, on 10/13/2007, -51/+18MAN BEAR PIG!
    • rudyghouliani, on 10/16/2007, -59/+29"Well deserved", WTF are you talking about? The courts have just labelled him a lying piece of *****, and on top of it, a turd for trying to indoctrinate schools kids with lies. get with it!
      • hipnerd, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1They certainly did not. The judge pointedly refused to weigh in on whether the film was accurate or not. His only role was to determine which of Gore's points were controversial enough that an opposing viewpoint must be offered under British law. Out of the hundreds of facts in the movie, nine were determined to have some degree of political controversy attached to them that required that an opposing viewpoint be included. This doesn't mean that Gore was wrong, only that the judge felt the point was debatable.

        Somehow, this has been twisted into :"Judge calls 'An Inconvenient Truth' a pack of lies."

        Didn't happen.
    • sniperhare, on 10/14/2007, -60/+25So he wins for something he made up?
    • rich8n, on 10/15/2007, -41/+23Well Deserved? All this does is prove that the Nobel Committee has joined the Motion Picture Academy and the like by compromising on a long history of impeccable standards because they can't get their heads out of thier political rear-ends.
    • JohanLieberg, on 10/16/2007, -19/+11Well deserved in my opinion.. for those of you who think global warning is a natural phoenomenon, you are damn straight.. it is natural, no-one said otherwise, it is the rate at which it is happening that is frightening.. yes ice ages happened before, but they happened very slowly at a rate where living things could adapt gradually.. what concern scientists the most is that, it is as if global warning is happening with the blink of an eye, temperatures are rising too quickly, the arctic ice is melting too fast, see levels are rising too fast, etc...
    • jonnyboy1544, on 10/15/2007, -53/+52For caring about the earth, kudos. For trying to scare people into action with shoddy cherry picked science, shame on him.
      • donjuan571, on 10/15/2007, -30/+15Wow the gore virus is spreading...people need to read the fallacies about his documentary, his own energy consumption, and maybe read up on the Nobel Peace prize and the fact that it was given to Yasser Arafat, this alone should discount all its credibility. Secondly, he was awarded it for something that did not even happen?! WTF are we this stupid? Thats like giving me a Nobel Peace Prize for taking a huge crap and clogging the toilet, which inadvertently stopped a nuclear attack on this country preventing world war 3. You have to be serious...

        I hate when people get dugg down for telling it like it is...this guy is a schmuck that claimed he invented the internet and is riding the eco train all the way to the bank.
        • benggg, on 10/13/2007, -8/+20he never claimed to have invented the internet, dumbass.
        • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel prize for signing a peace treaty with a country he had been fighting for 30 years or so. These days, under Hamas and the general chaos in the Middle East provoked by the unilateral, aggressive invasion of Iraq, you can feel a little nostalgic for ol' Yasser in the days before Israeli extremists murdered Rabin.
        • Alexiares, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0...and then Arafat.
        • Orion682, on 10/13/2007, -0/+5He never claimed to have invented the internet. But he was instrumental in getting funding for it when it was just a research project, and without him, the internet would not be what it is today, and very well might not be at all. Go do some research before you mindlessly parrot a headline from the mainstream media.
      • trvr, on 10/15/2007, -14/+40Fox News, is that you?
      • LeeSoong, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2Al Gore doesn't Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize -
        Everyone knows Mr. Bush Really won the peace prize,
        if it wasn't for those phony fixed Nobel Voting Machines!

        Al Gore Stole the Nobel - Freedom Isn't Free -
        Peace is Earned through Strategic First Strike Pre-emtive Warfare!
        History will show Mr. Bush did more for creating peace in the middle east (once they run out of targets).
    • Zippo, on 10/16/2007, -25/+123This is the man you guys didn't elect, in favour of Bush.
      Congratulations, America.
      • JohanLieberg, on 10/15/2007, -11/+28and they elected bush twice!!
        • Zippo, on 10/14/2007, -0/+24I suppose that's what you call adding insult to injury.
        • thesmrt12004, on 10/15/2007, -5/+17we elected him once in 2004 he stole it in 2000
          Al Gore got the popular vote in 2000 but somehow ended up not getting all the electoral college points
        • Alexiares, on 10/15/2007, -4/+5No. He cheated and stole the elections twice.
          • LeeSoong, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4American People don't vote for people - computers vote for people.

            He that controls the computers, controls the election...

            (good thing there is no paper trail)
      • revo764, on 10/16/2007, -29/+8Gore is a lying piece of *****, the courts just proved it, what more proof do you want that this man is a fraud, probably on par with G.W. You extreme lefties are ***** retarted!
        • 89vision, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Why do you take a partisan stance on global warming?
        • freakk123, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2You, sir, are a moron.
      • lharrod, on 10/16/2007, -4/+15As an American, I will admit, popularity is unfortunately valued more than than integrity and intelligence. This is why "A-Rod" is supposedly worth a billion dollars and the nobel prize winners must share one million. If given the choice between watching Britney Spears getting drunk on reality television, and witnessing the second coming of Christ, Americans would choose Britney.
        • Kappa00, on 10/14/2007, -1/+3So you would rather watch Britney?
        • Oogler, on 10/15/2007, -3/+2Um, Christ has been here once already? I don't understand.
          • saifatlast, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3Yeah, it's generally thought by historians that Jesus Christ as a person actually existed. If he were to come again (who knows??!), it would be the second coming. Check out this article on this sweet website I found that talks about Jesus as a historical person:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
        • dragon76, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3Well, Christ isn't going to tour, now is he?
      • jcm267, on 10/16/2007, -23/+5I'm happy that we elected Bush over Gore. I wish we had a better option, but the lesser of two evils in 2000 was Dubya.
        • bassman730, on 10/15/2007, -3/+12I would have taken anything Gore would have done over a war in Iraq.
        • repeatoffender, on 10/15/2007, -7/+4precisely
        • delafere, on 10/15/2007, -4/+8It is almost impossible to imagine how Gore could/would have done worse than your chimpanzee, whom I have had the honor to vote against four times (pardon me if I take this opportunity to bust the whole Blame Texas thing... a lot of us have despised Bush longer than the rest of you).
      • FierceGrape, on 10/13/2007, -2/+17If memory serves me correctly more people voted for Gore than Bush.
        • notthemama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Didn't Carter get in the same way Bush did?
      • Alexiares, on 10/15/2007, -6/+10Americans would rather have a war criminal than a Nobel prize winner as president.
      • freakk123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey hey hey, none of that, Alexiares, Gore won the popular vote.

        As for the second time around, well, I don't know what to tell you. I think the states with the biggest meth problems all went Republican in '04, so why don't we just chalk it up to that.
    • locitman, on 10/15/2007, -9/+81BREAKING NEWS!! there seems to be a problem with the ballots used to vote...the Nobel Committee is considering a recount...
    • Fungo, on 10/15/2007, -31/+68Actually, we DID elect Gore the first time around.
      • pasta2000, on 10/15/2007, -19/+5Funny, no news paper has ever reported this. This includes when the news paper companies went down to Florida after the recounts ended and did their own recount.
        • rossmcd, on 10/13/2007, -1/+13How could a privately owned newspaper company count ballots held in ballot boxes? Can you please post a link to a story about this?
        • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Actually, this is proof you can't read. The recount story happened after 9/11, so the newspapers who did the full recount did the worst job of burying their lede I've ever seen. If you counted all the votes that were there, Gore won Florida by thousands of votes.
          • delafere, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2I think you'd be hard pressed to present evidence that elections are NOT rigged in the modern era. In fact, since you can't prove a negative in this sense, I don't really have any particular faith in your belief that the election was not rigged, that the recount was not faulty, that the exit polls suddenly were no longer valid, and that the newspapers are not either manipulated by or in cahoots with the people controlling our "free" elections. The election of 2000 was hinky. The election of 2004 was hinkier.
        • pasta2000, on 10/15/2007, -2/+3ROSSMCD - "Can you please post a link to a story about this?"
          This link to a story from the CNN archives will support my claim. - http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/flo ...
          Also, for Swift2, please note that this article was posted over 5 months before 9/11.
          You two and those who -DIGG my statement are in the wrong.
        • HardJeans, on 10/15/2007, -1/+5Fungo: "we DID elect Gore the first time around." pasta2000: "Funny, no news paper has ever reported this." - backed up by link.If you actually read the article in the link, you would've read:
          "The newspapers' review also discovered that canvassing boards in Palm Beach and Broward counties threw out hundreds of ballots that had marks that were no different from ballots deemed to be valid.
          The papers concluded that Gore would be in the White House today if those ballots had been counted. "

          So what was that about no news papers ever reported that we DID elect Gore the first time around?
        • pasta2000, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1HardJeans - The title of the article is "Bush still wins Florida in newspaper recount." if the paper really believe that Gore won like they state later on in the article, then why not have a different title to the article? Also, you quote about thrown out ballots yet the report doesn't dig into the why they were thrown out. Both of these items leaves me believing that they were only tossed in to try to get people like you worked up. In the end, fact still remains that Gore lost to Bush.
      • repeatoffender, on 10/15/2007, -24/+7No "we" didn't you moron. And if you knew the slightest thing about how elections work and what the electoral college is, you would know that in fact Bush won under the rules as written over 200 years ago.

        And thank God. As bad as Bush is, I still prefer him to the Gorebot.
        • mikesbaker, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4i used to feel that way but now it hard to say now - 'well if you think this sucks imagine it with gore'
        • notthemama, on 10/15/2007, -4/+3I agree. Bush is horrible but Gore would have been worse.
          It's funny how people who scream that Gore won the election by popular vote ignore that Carter got in the exact same way. He'd lost the popular vote but won the election college vote.
      • debtchemo, on 10/15/2007, -2/+2No he did not. Why can't you people get over that?
    • bdbr, on 10/16/2007, -3/+17Its great that he was awarded the prize and all, but it just seems a little ironic that it happened on the same day that the British high court said it would be "breaking the law" to show the movie in schools without pointing out the scientific errors.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/70376 ...
      • delafere, on 10/15/2007, -2/+12Yes, courts are good at deciding which science is done properly. That's why MIT exclusively hires lawyers and judges to teach its science curriculum and conduct research.
    • cbuddha42, on 10/15/2007, -19/+35I don't get this choice.

      That global warming is happening and happening at an alarming rate is pretty much undeniable. A whole bunch of evidence gathered and calculated in different ways points to this conclusion. However, that global warming is due to man made causes is not a scientific conclusion. Man, like any other living organism on the planet, has an impact on the evirnonment, but there is no way to tell how much of the current change is due to man. In order to evaluate man's impact, it would be necessary to understand all of the components of the system and their causes, which is well beyond the reach of modern science. There are millions, probably millions of millions, of variables which would have to be taken into account to do this kind of modeling at any meaningful level of accuracy. It takes some of the biggest supercomputers we have today to do weather and climate analysis and supply predictions for the next week or so, and how often is your weather report wrong?

      Correlation does not equal causation, and there is no way Gore reaches any reasonable threshold of proving causation. When I burn wood for a fire does that release green house gasses? Yes, but so does a cow eating some grass and releasing methane. I fail to see why the former is evil humanity wrecking the environment but the later is ok. I am just as much a part of my environment as the cow, I just have greater control over it.

      Reguardless, the Earth has a limited life span, so wouldn't humanity be better served accelerating science to find a way to move beyond the Earth and out into space rather than preserving earth for as long as possible? Which brings me back to my intial point: Gore's documentary isn't particularly important to humanity, and I can't see why he is a better candidate for a PEACE prize than someone actually working to promote PEACE in say Darfur rather than promoting the ENVIRONMENT (not peace) in America.
      • liquidjamm, on 10/15/2007, -10/+7Well put sir, dugg ++
      • rossmcd, on 10/13/2007, -5/+21"When I burn wood for a fire does that release green house gasses? Yes, but so does a cow eating some grass and releasing methane. I fail to see why the former is evil humanity wrecking the environment but the later is ok."

        Greenhouse gas levels are rising at an absurdly high rate, and Gore's point is that we need to do something to curb this before it wreaks havoc. Saying things like "but ___ is doing it, so why can't I?" misses the point. Furthermore, cows are not a good example to use of "natural" sources of greenhouse gas. We humans are responsible for there being so many of them, thanks to our massive feedlot factories. If our fat asses ate less beef, there would be fewer cows.

        Second, your comments about space exploration completely miss the points that Gore and environmentalists have been making. ***** sapiens have been around for about 200,00 years - the blink of an eye in the earth's 4.5 billion year history. Assuming no human-induced catastrophe the Earth will be inhabitable for about a billion more years, when the Sun starts expanding and the Earth gets too hot to sustain life. This is plenty of time... Unless we keep up our rate of greenhouse gas production, as it has been for the last ~50 years or so. Rather than continue to recklessly pollute the planet and then declare that it had a limited lifespan anyway, we should get our lifestyles in check with reality.

        It is a moral question - is the earth ours to destroy? There is a practical question - what other planet could we find that we would WANT to live on? Do you realize how many millions of years of evolution has adapted us to the specific conditions on this planet?? If we went some place with different gravity, radiation, atmospheric composition, or even light/dark cycle timing, our bodies would not be perfectly suited. Assuming we ever find a planet that is inhabitable at all, we'd be miserable.

        And about peace.. if there are major changes in global climate patterns, land and food will probably become scarce. The outcome of this would be fighting over resources. Preventing climate catastrophe helps prevent war.
      • BlueSun420, on 10/15/2007, -4/+7So are you making the claim that green house gases aren't bad for the environment? The difference between us releasing green house gases and a cow doing it, is that we can control the amount of green house gases that we release. We are not cows. And just cuz the cows are messing up the environment doesn't give us an excuse to do it. We are better than cows and we should take responsibility for the damages we are causing the environment. You make a good point by saying we should accelerate science to find a way off Earth, but accelerating science and caring for the environment are not mutually exclusive. We can do both.

        Yes, there are many variables that have an effect on the environment but I think it's absurd for you to suggest that the green house gas that we put into the atmosphere is not having any effect. That's a lot like saying that smoking doesn't cause cancer, cuz there's a lot of other things that cause cancer.
      • ZMann, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Buddah, Gore's recognition here is not just about a movie he made, its about the 20+ years he has worked to lobby and fight on behalf of the environment and on behalf of the people of the world.

        This is a very complicated issue, but there is no practical debate over whether or not our resources are at risk. As the availability of clean water will decline in the coming years, more and more wars will be waged in order to secure resources.

        Fighting for the environment = fighting for peace.
    • antoniojvr, on 10/15/2007, -19/+12Well deserved? For saying that there is no argument for global warming?
      The peace prize has been worthless anyways since Arafat won it.
    • mikesbaker, on 10/13/2007, -19/+11a noble peace prize for a power point presentation. god forbid it be given to someone who is promoting peace instead of fear mongering.
      • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"Fear mongering." That's a laugh. We've just lived through 6 years of the most dishonest fear-mongering in American history, and somebody who faces the facts about the environment is fear-mongering.
        • notthemama, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2If he had simply presented all the facts instead of cherry picking them and presenting fallacies, then he wouldn't have been fear mongering. Do you even know what fear mongering is?
    • Kier, on 10/15/2007, -12/+5Of course Gore won, he's 'doing' something that might actually benefit rich white man one day. No one seems to care about Darfur, the current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan or the atrocities in Burma, but some sensationalist science that's still under hot debate is the most important thing in world peace. Probably because if what he's saying ever happens, us in the West might actually be inconvenienced.
      • Swift2, on 10/13/2007, -0/+6Not true. Jimmy Carter and many, many thousands of people have made this their cause. And in fact, Bush has arranged a shaky peace deal, for which Carter thanked him on national TV the other day. And if you think that alleviating global warming is a "rich white man" problem, look at what would happen to Africa in terms of the spread of the Sahara. Darfur is partially a war over religion, and partially a matter of one resource: water.
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/13/2007, -10/+15Well deserved? And for what reason does he deserve this (now meaningless) prize? Was it the factually inaccurate and politically-biased "An Inconvenient Truth" or is it his hypocritical lifestyle of consuming more energy and resources than 90% of households in the world? Maybe it's the highly praised "Carbon Credit" program that doesn't reduce any CO2 emissions whatsoever and is just a money scam?

      Bringing awareness to pollution may be one thing, but this guy has brought on the global warming hype with no factual basis. He has no credibility. Shyster doesn't begin to describe this guy, he's a fraud, a liar and he's hijacked the world with fear mongering. His notoriety is on par with all the other doomsday predictors, except this time one is getting awarded.

      He's a living joke and he's making money off of it all while hardly doing any real good. ***** Al Gore and ***** all you supporters of him.
      • StepCousin, on 10/15/2007, -12/+3He's a piece of ***** politician.....contributed $353 to charity in 1997....typical liberal hypocrisy.

        And don't forget about his tobacco plantation and Halliburton stocks, all the while preaching against them.
    • Herostratos, on 10/13/2007, -8/+5I am so ***** ashamed of being a Norwegian right now.

      Oh, and btw: You know which vice president who said he wouldn't ratify the Kyoto protocol when given the chance?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho0Lda-i3oY&eurl=ht ...
    • PoeticExplosion, on 10/16/2007, -0/+11How does environmental activism win him a peace prize?

      From wikipedia:

      According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
    • SquigglyP, on 10/13/2007, -0/+4"... And then all the monkeys give other monkeys awards for doing things... as tho it meant something..."

      It's great, but really... does it matter? Who really gives a ***** if he won some "being a good person" award? Is it not enough to just be a good person?
    • bullcutter, on 11/20/2007, -1/+0What a scam. Could someone please explain what global warming (if you can call it "warming", I call a raise of 1 degree across 100 years a "statistically-insignificant-nothing") has to do with world peace? Where is this peace Al Gore is responsible for? When global warming is proven to be a hoax in the next decade or so, will Gore give back his award, or will he have diverted our attentions to other bogus, non-issues by then?

      Al Gore's personal power consumption is at 20x that of the average American, and this is AFTER An Inconvenient Truth! He flies private jets to movie premiers, introduces thousands of lbs of CO2 into the air, and is personally responsible for wasting tons of energy in the development and pushing of his various pro-environment products. Does anyone else see the irony in all this??

      Furthermore, do these sound like the habits of someone who is serious about "changing the way they live"? YOU HAVE ALL BEEN DUPED! GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST SCAM OF THE 21st CENTURY!
  • 8teve, on 11/08/2007, -136/+255Congratulations to Al Gore, well-deserved recognition. Hopefully this will continue to bring more attention to environmental issues...like no more dumping of pig crap in Lake Springfield!
    • k3nshady89, on 10/13/2007, -28/+13that's so serial.
    • perbertt, on 10/13/2007, -54/+18Gore cares nothing about global warming. He is a globalist. He is trying to make a big deal about it to bring in a world carbon tax, basically a tax on breathing and living. Totally to enslave and bankrupt the world. This is why global warming is pushed so much in the mainstream media. Besides it wasn't long ago in the 70's they were warning of a coming ice age. Global warming is a natural not man made phenomenon.

      Proof is in the Great Global Warming Swindle. http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-G ...
      • jonnyeh, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26That stupid doc has been debunked, along with Loose Change.
        http://globalisation-and-the-environment.blogspot. ...

        First you say Global warming is pushed by the media, then point to a documentary published by the media.
      • ProgressBar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"tax on breathing and living"... you're an idiot. Unless you consider "living" your right to drive whatever gas-guzzling beast you want?

        Think you have the right to pollute the air I breathe however you wish? Think again.
      • slicedoranges, on 10/15/2007, -1/+3TAXES TAXES TAXES TAXES TAXES TAXES TAXES TAXES TAXES
        Who cares how useful, appropriate or necessary they are, they're still taxes, which are evil!

        War cry of a conservative
    • stevetrojanman, on 10/13/2007, -35/+13Al Gore didn't invent the internet...but he did invent Global Warming...congrats to him for creating one of the largest public swindles in the history of mankind...
      • alex7575, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13He invented Global warming...So he's going to the poles with a torch and melting the poles. Just the kind of comment from someone who gets his news from Fox.
    • MSstar, on 10/13/2007, -16/+10or protecting us against manbearpig
    • Pwelborn1, on 10/13/2007, -14/+3If you believe that you can do ANYTHING to affect the global climate then you are a very arrogant human being. It's just impossible. That's REAL SCIENCE!
      • freepizza48, on 10/13/2007, -1/+10Like I doubt we can do anything about you being an ignorant *****.
        • Pwelborn1, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1I'll bet I have more education than you do.
      • guzziguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Please don't rush too quickly to trash the pig poop in the lake, I understand Homer purchased carbon offsets. George Soros fronted him the $$$.
    • Vorin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That could have been anyone's pig crap silo!
    • StepCousin, on 10/15/2007, -4/+3"When my sister and I were growing up," Mr. Gore told a small audience made up mostly of women, "there was never any doubt in our minds that men and women were equal, if not more so."
      (Source: NY Times, 08/12/00)
      ------------------------------
      "A zebra does not change its spots." - Al Gore, attacking President George Bush in 1992.
      (Sources: The Toronto Sun, 11/19/95)
      ------------------------------
      "I'm very familiar with the importance of dairy farming in Wisconsin . I've spent the night on a dairy farm here in Wisconsin . If I'm entrusted with the presidency, you'll have someone who is very familiar with what the Wisconsin dairy industry is all about."
      (Sources: Sunday, June 18, Atlanta Journal Constitution)
      ------------------------------
      "Speaking from my own religious tradition in this Christmas season, 2,000 years ago a homeless woman gave birth to a homeless child in a manger because the inn was full."
      Hello! Mary and Joseph were not homeless!
      (Sources: Press Conference at HUD, 12/22/97; George Will column, Sunday May 17 1998)
      ------------------------------
      "I certainly learned a great deal from 3,000 town hall meetings across my home state of Tennessee over a 16-year period", the vice president told NPR’s Bob Edwards.
      Do the math. That’s 187 town hall meetings per year, or a meeting in Tennessee every other day for 16 years, including weekends, holidays, vacations, and time spent running for president in 1988 and for vice president in 1992.
      ------------------------------
      Maybe Michael Jordan hasn't made an indelible impression on everyone outside Chicago . Speaking at a D.C. function, Vice President Al Gore, wowed by the Bulls, said: "I tell you that Michael Jackson is unbelievable, isn't he. He's just unbelievable."
      (Source: The Chicago Tribune June 17, 1998)
      ------------------------------
      "I seek this office to restore the rule of law and respect for common sense to the White House." ...
      Ummmmm....did you really mean that?
      ------------------------------
      Finding himself talking to the controversial rock star Courtney Love at a Hollywood party, Mr. Gore attempted to charm her by telling her he was a fan. Rather than just accepting the easy compliment, Love cross-examined him.
      "He goes 'I'm a really big fan'," said Love. "And I was like 'Yeah, right. Name a song, Al'." The answer came limply back: "I can't name a song. I'm just a really big fan."
      ------------------------------
      Back in 1994, Al Gore called Oliver North "the colonel of untruth" and said Mr. North was counting on political contributions from "the extra-chromosome right wing."
      * Most fetuses with trisomy are miscarried during the first trimester. Most of those who survive have Down syndrome, also known as trisomy 21 because it's caused by an extra chromosome 21.
      ------------------------------
      "Gore smiled and admitted that he, too, has trouble turning on a computer - let alone using one."
      (Source: "Gore Touts Job-Training Programs at Pittsburgh Factory" Associated Press September 4, 1998)
      ----- 6 MONTHS LATER -----
      "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" Gore said when asked to cite accomplishments that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey , during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on March 9, 1999.
      ------------------------------
      In the spring 1998 - Gore called The Washington Post's executive editor to tip him off on an ''error'' in the paper. ''I decided I just had to call because you've printed a picture of the Earth upside down on the front page of the paper,'' Gore said.
      (Source: Florida Times Union 4/3/98 )
      ------------------------------
      Al Gore, when asked about his illegal fundraising activities that took place in a Buddhist temple: "I didn't realize I was in a Buddhist temple."
      But Mr. Gore said he was sometimes inattentive and missed parts of fund-raising meetings. He told the F.B.I., according to notes of a 1998 interview, that "he drank a lot of iced tea during meetings, which could have necessitated a restroom break."
      ( New York Times, 3/11/00)
      ------------------------------
      In a letter, an elderly couple, Mr. and Mrs. Delgadillo explained to Al Gore how much they rely on the government-owned Amtrak trains to visit their children and grandchildren in Chicago and on each coast. The couple reminded the vice president that President Clinton relied on train travel to reach the Democratic National Convention in Chicago . "The train has been our main-stay," the couple states. "Yet your administration is killing our Texas Eagle. This makes us sick."

      The Texas Eagle is the Amtrak train that for years has operated between Chicago , St. Louis , Little Rock , Dallas , Fort Worth and San Antonio . But facing a $243 million shortfall in 1997, Amtrak President Thomas Downs recently targeted four Amtrak routes for elimination, including the Texas Eagle service between St. Louis and San Antonio . "What can you do to save our Eagle?" the couple pleaded to the vice president.

      Gore responded with: "Dear Mr. and Mrs. Delgadillo, Thank you for your letter regarding the protection of the Texas eagle. I appreciate hearing from you. I share your view that the urgent problem of species extinction and the conservation of biological diversity should be addressed. The first step in saving any plant or animal from extinction is to become aware of and respect the fragile ecosystems that make up our environment. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I look forward to working with you for the future of our planet."

      It's strange he should talk about the ecosystem and extinction since the Texas Eagle is a TRAIN!
      (Sources: reported on Fox News Sunday on December 3, 1996, as well as quoted in the National Review and reported in the 12/6/96 Washington Times "Inside the Beltway" by John McCaslin)
      • resplence, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Your point being?
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1So... In other words... Al Gore is a liar and Global Warming is a sham... don't even look into all that evidence.

        Ill keep an eye on this foul play, but I'd believe Al gore way way way before I'd even ask Dick Cheney the time of day.
        (And I like Ron Paul so don't think i'm ultra left wing.)
        • StepCousin, on 10/13/2007, -1/+1Yes, Gore is a liar, and you are a liar. The only reason you support Ron Paul is because of his anti-war stance.
  • BdaBeerman, on 11/11/2007, -141/+668That's quite a legacy for the Democrats; first Carter now Gore.
    What has the Republican party left the world with? A legacy of war and invasion - oh and a VP who couldn't spell. But hey, 'praise the lord' eh?
    • fishbert, on 10/13/2007, -74/+10buckets of money?
      I might very well want buckets of money over some Nobel legacy.
      • zybch, on 10/13/2007, -4/+54Buckets of money? For themselves perhaps, but certainly not for anyone else.
        • TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Yes, because unemployment isn't at it's lowest, government income from tax revenue isn't at it's highest......it may not be "buckets of money" but it's something...
          • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Actually, unemployment isn't at its lowest. They just leave the unemployed off the list after they've been unemployed for a while. And then, there's the fact that the jobs that do exist are at Wal-Mart.
      • Kinkistyle, on 10/13/2007, -7/+34Yeah buckets of DIRTY BLOOD MONEY.
      • annonimality, on 10/13/2007, -3/+39You consider a 9 trillion dollar National Debt buckets of money? http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
        • wtfpwned98, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Right, by his logic we can open up a credit card and instantly produce $10,000 out of thin air. Cool, huh?
        • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15it's buckets of money being taken away from me, my children, my grandchildren, etc.
        • grr74, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1and owned by the Chinese...
      • llamaguy132, on 10/13/2007, -12/+7i didn't realize how anti-republican everyone was here... why do you all love Ron Paul again?
        oh, and Ron Paul is running on a 'buckets of money' campaign. (promising to cut spending)
        Ron Paul '08 (and I'm actually a Republican)
        • Hillsfar, on 10/13/2007, -1/+7We love Ron Paul who stands for small government, reducing the deficit, and getting out of Iraq. We hate the current neo-con Republicans who are: for big government, for Big Brother, for tax cuts not offset by reduced government spending, for corporate welfare, for excessive debt-financed government, and for squandering the lives of our soldiers to play geopolitik.
          • llamaguy132, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2BIG difference between the entire GOP and their current leaders (the neo's)
            Just like, for instance, there is a big difference between American and its current leader...
        • repmekevets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2we like ron paul because he's a libertarian, not a republican (regardless of what his voter registration card says).

          with that said, i'm still going to vote for obama.
      • DoctorDiamond, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7They give you a bucket of money for winning the Nobel Prize, actually. Generated from Nobel's personal assets. He even stipulated in his will that the prize money must be delivered in a bucket. http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_com_will3.html
        • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And Gore is giving the proceeds to a non-partisan group that works on global warming.
        • dijital, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1lmao @ 'stipulation' comment...
    • OBKenobi, on 10/13/2007, -85/+16How about the Clintons? How's that for a legacy?

      The Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans, and I wouldn't get too excited about Al Gore being the savior of mankind, because he isn't it. It's down to the lesser of two evils again, and that is not good enough!
      • schrankage, on 10/12/2007, -12/+34I'd wager Bill Clinton isn't far from the Peace prize himself.
        • theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -18/+8Yeah, a piece of fine, juicy ass!
        • ArchangelZLT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2To theblooms:

          I'd rather consider your comment a positive answer and a signature following.
      • NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -7/+49This is probably the closest I've seen a genuine comment get to "But... But... Clinton!"
      • djh816, on 10/13/2007, -6/+30Had an affair vs. sent thousands off to fight a war that shoulnt even be fought.... ya ima have to go ahead and say the second is worse.
      • Subliminational, on 10/13/2007, -3/+1Stupid comment system.....minimal surfaces instead!

        http://www.indiana.edu/~minimal/archive/index.html
      • brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Please go read up on other presidents. Clinton is not the first president to be guilty of adultery. The problem is he lied about it at a trial that probably never should have been taking place to begin with.

        If anything his legacy won't be that he got a blow job or even that he lied about it. It will be that he was a pretty good president while in office.
    • felman87, on 10/13/2007, -19/+8Was the last peace prize winner on the repub Teddy Roosevelt?
      • art42, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Wasn't Teddy progressive?
        • MacEnvy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18He started out as a Republican, but by the last time he ran for President, he ran as a Democrat. He could see his former party falling to corporate interests.
          • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Why are you being dugg up? Oh yea, digg is full of uneducated left wing zealots.
          • FyreGoddess, on 10/13/2007, -0/+6He didn't run as a Democrat, he ran as a Progressive - a party that he helped to create - after not getting the Republican nomination.
          • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No, he ran as a Bull Moose, his own Independent party. And what do you know? Some lone wacko took a shot at him.
        • geddon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Key word: Corporate Interests. Take note, RonBots!
    • quomen, on 10/13/2007, -35/+7So.. You haven't heard of Abraham Lincoln huh?
      • the6thReplicant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Nobel Prize?
      • art42, on 10/13/2007, -5/+36The republican party of Lincoln's day were closer to todays democratic party.
        • pintomp3, on 10/13/2007, -3/+9the 180 flip is interesting. when it came to slavery, the democrats were about states rights, but now when it comes to banning abortion, the republicans are about states rights. both used states rights to take away individual freedom. the democratic party was based in the south and was rife with racism and bigotry, now the republicans own that demographic.
        • Volatile36, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Never did understand how that flip came about.
          • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fill in the blanks: 1965 Civil Rights Act. As Johnson signed it, he said, "That's the end of the Democratic Party in the South for a generation." There'd already been the Wallace rebellion in 1964. Then when Nixon ran in 1968, his advisers constructed the Southern Strategy, which won much of the South for him. The Republicans changed ideological direction completely. In 1980, Saint Reagan started his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, where the three civil rights workers had been murdered. He didn't mention them, though. He talked about "state's rights." Hmm. The very cause that Lincoln, and the 100 years of Republicans since, fought to limit.
      • epicstruggle, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Actually Buchanan (democrat) gets blamed for the mess that leads to the Civil War. He gets voted as the worst president we have ever had routinely by historians. Wiki is your friend. ;)
        • MacEnvy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I dunno, I think Andrew Jackson was a prick too. Our Native friends (those that still exist) would likely agree.
        • saturdaysinbed, on 10/13/2007, -3/+4Oh, a democrat president sucked hundreds of years ago? Republicans must be better than.
          • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Well in recent years the Democrats have had Carter and Bill Clinton.
        • gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Bush is the new Buchanan.
      • quomen, on 10/12/2007, -10/+36th. You're an idiot.
    • epicstruggle, on 10/18/2007, -43/+97legacy of war? Dems share that title. WW1 (Wilson), WW2 (FDR), Korean War (Truman), Vietnam (Kennedy/Johnson) all democrats. Republicans have the last 2 Gulf Wars.
      • Zique, on 10/14/2007, -12/+76Damn that Roosevelt, dressing up as Hitler and declaring war on USA!
        • GiggleStick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31You know about Pearl Harbor, right?
        • djh816, on 10/13/2007, -7/+37Ya seriously in WWII, we defended ourselves. Thats a hell of a lot different than starting the war.
        • metric7, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7Hitler declared war on us only after we declared war on japan. And FDR goaded them into attacking us
          • gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Did they teach you to be a NAZI apologist in school? curriculum has changed quite a bit.
        • yubpro, on 10/13/2007, -11/+7What idiots dugg Achalemoipas up? There is strong evidence to the fact that FDR and other top government/military officials at the time knew a US Pacific Base was going to be attacked, before December 7th. The question ultimately remains, however, whether the code that was received and decrypted was 'accidentally' overlooked or deliberately ignored. Take a moment to google "Pearl Harbor Conspiracy" and you'll find a plethora of valid historical evidence.

          Do us a favor Achalemoipas, don't tell who or who not to vote, because you might as well stand in a mirror and yell it for all we care.
          • yubpro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Except it's supported and at least considered by many revisionist historians today. Have you ever read any revisionist views/opinions? Don't call me ignorant if you haven't. Sorry that conspiracy has such poor connotations today because of the 9/11 theorists; google "Pearl Harbor Revisionist View" instead. Oh, I bet you think Columbus was a great hero when he 'discovered' the Americas too, instead of being jailed and out casted.
          • CherryTop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2OMG Yubpro. That's ridiculous. I doubt you could even get Rosie O'Donnell to side with you on that one.

            Go put some tin foil on your head and sit in the corner. Everything's going to be fine.

            And please do not vote.
      • madroneDorf, on 10/13/2007, -12/+35WW1 and WW2 were generally "good" wars, I'd argue that Korean was worth it (saved South Korea)

        Of course I don't have much against Gulf war 1 either, really only Iraq and Vietnam that are *****.

        Of course really talking about political parties beyond 40+ years ago gets to be stupid, they've changed significantly in makeup and idealogy.
        • fossilnews, on 10/13/2007, -6/+14That's revisionist history. During WWII that same arguments were made then against going to war in Europe as they are being made now in Iraq. People made the argument that "Germany didn't attack us" and "the real enemy is Japan". Charles Lindberg was a huge opponent of going to war in Europe and organized a letter writing campaign of 1 million letters to the White House.

          In short, there was a huge debate as to whether war in Europe was the right thing to do.

          Finally, before people reply that Iraq is different, etc, let me state that I am not defending Iraq but rather trying to set the record straight on how many people didn't think WWII was a "good" war when it came to fighting in Europe.
          • ahoyhoy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Germany might never have attacked us, but Hitler did declare war on us sometime between 1942 and 1943 prior to our invasion. Fear of possibly being hit by a Blitzkrieg similar to the one the UK was undergoing was the reason young men needed to enlist

            Also, WWI was perceived by a slight majority to be a good war, due in thanks to a shock event (sinking of a ship-liner) and various propaganda. Now, we see WWI as an overall obscene waste of life began through a series of entangled alliances and mixed communications. Seriously what we're we fighting for in WWI?
          • Swift2, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2Hitler declared war on the US in a speech to the Reichstag on Dec. 11, 1941. He said, "The Three Powers have therefore concluded the following Agreement, which was signed in Berlin today:

            "In their unshakable determination not to lay down arms until the joint war against the U.S.A. and England reaches a successful conclusion, the German, Italian, and Japanese Governments have agreed on the following points:

            Article I. Germany, Italy and Japan will wage the common war forced upon them by the U.S.A. and England with all the means of power at their disposal, to a victorious conclusion."
        • BackDoorAngel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2yup, 10 million people dead for WW1 sounds like a "good" war to me
          • crawf061, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4you missed the point. We got involved in the war for good reasons.
        • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree with everything but World War I. That was a stupid bloodbath of the Imperial powers of Europe, and had nothing to do with us. I have almost no regard for Wilson, the idiotic racist who segregated Washington DC and ran promising peace in 1916, and then declared war in 1917. As the opposition during that time said, it was a war to ensure the Morgan loans to England were repaid. He took every chance to imprison people for 10 years for even making speeches against the war. He traveled to Europe after the war, promising self-determination for all, and then came back with his tail between his legs, beaten by the old guard of Europe.

          Iraq makes him look like a genius, though.
        • Dongvid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How was the Korean war a good war? It was obvious that the majority of Koreans supported Kim Il Sung for his land reform policies, and we only defended them in the interest of preserving democracy, even if it was under Syngman Rhee (who imprisoned political dissenters).
      • Nirgaul, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Yes.
      • Gothvanhelsing, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I guess in the 80s bringing an end to communism in the old USSR without firing a shot, counts for nothing.
        • krakhed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Communism falling was not because of Regan it was because of Gorby and Glasnost. Just because Regan made some pretty speaches does not make him responsible. ***** great communicator. Not firing a shot what were Vietname, and Korea. Of course what really destroyed the soviet union was their involvement in Afghanistan.
        • mrurc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, krakhed, Communism was failing in Europe long before Gorby and Glasnost. Glasnost was Gorby's plan to help the Soviet economy, which was already in the tank despite official Soviet announcements to the contrary.

          Still, European communism did not fail because of Reagan, unless you think that the Soviet and Yugoslavian economies failed because so much of their money was spent on the arms race with us. That would be false but at least it would try to make a claim with more basis than "Reagan ended communism."
        • resplence, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1You guys talk about communism as if it was some sort of evil scheme, like Nazism. Are you really that much of a stereotypical brainwashed north american?
    • ReinMasamuri, on 10/12/2007, -38/+8Yeah, because Carter deserved the peace prize too.
      The only thing this has done is denigrate the Nobel Prize even more.
      • Volatile36, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Oh noes, someone who actually worked for peace got a Peace prize!!
        • HeavyWaters, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Does working for peace include installing a man that unleashed Islamic terror across the globe? Carter did more damage to this nation than any other President in history. And he is being followed closely by Clinton and Bush.
          • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He didn't "install" Khomeini for Christ's sake. And he certainly didn't sell Tow missiles to Iran so he could use the money to pay for death squads in Central America.
    • kete00, on 10/13/2007, -15/+5Umm......Lincoln?
    • mangasm, on 10/12/2007, -22/+21yeah.. aren't the demos in congress voting towards an Iranian conflict just as much as the Repubs are?
      Last I checked, Hilary Clinton saw no problems with the direction we're headed towards concerning Iran... did we all forget that that already?
      Parties don't matter.
      Anyway, he Gore def doesn't deserve this. The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to go to people actively ensuring and aiding the production of peace, not someone who "might be doing something that might stop future people from maybe fighting over resources."

      Global warming is a big issue, and Gore is just riding it for fame and money, he's a POLITICIAN, nothing more.

      People trying to stop the Cambodian sex slave trade and Darfur deserve this far more.
      • thatsmyaibo, on 10/15/2007, -12/+11This is digg. Logic doesn't fly well here.
      • SwingCorey, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Exactly - how about the Republican legacy is that of Ronald Reagan:
        - a crumbled Berlin Wall,
        - a destroyed "Iron Curtain",
        - the collapse of communism in Europe, which imprisoned, enslaved, and killed tens of millions in the 20th century,
        - economic prosperity the likes of which the world had never seen before

        yes, there are things Repubs have done wrong - Gore and other Democrats aren't exactly saints either.
        Why not give the prize to people who have done something good for others, instead of vainglorious self-promotions like "An Inconvenient Truth".
        • Fungo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10How about a little fact-checking
          1) Making a speech saying "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Didn't being down the Berlin Wall. It didn't even come down during his presidency.
          2) The Iron Curtain was "destroyed" with the fall of communism, which, if you read anything about European history, was inevitable
          3) See point 2. Communism was bound to collapse due to all of the economic problems that were appearing in the communist structure. If you knew anything, you'd know that the later Soviet Premiers were trying to fix this ON THEIR OWN by shifting to more free-market economics, but it was already too late.
          4) Reagan spent money on useless crap like there was no tomorrow. His irresponsible spending led the United States into a recession. Also, Reaganomics was a complete failure.
          • jmeskimen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I have a problem with your view on Reaganomics. Reagan cut inflation (and thus stagflation, the combination of stagnation and inflation), lowered unemployment rates, and reduced national spending during much of his term. He may have increased the national debt largely by lowering taxes by too much, but he met his other goals. If he had not lowered taxes by such a great margin, 'Reaganomics' may arguably have been a great success.

            Also, get your facts straight, the only recession occurred in Reagan's second year as president. He pulled the US out of the recession and still managed to do the aforementioned things.

            The only bad that Reagan did was create a large national debt. But hey, spend money to make money, right?
          • mrurc, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2Exactly. SwingCorey's argument is that 1) Regan beat the commies, 2) Reagan beat the commies, 3) Reagan beat the commies, and 4) Reagan made someone somewhere some money.

            Reagan did not have anything to do with the fall of European communism. The European communists' fascist governments had a lot to do with the fall of European communism, but Reagan had nothing to do with it.

            Crediting Reagan with the fall of communism is like crediting Clinton for Jackie Joyner-Kersee's gold medals.
      • MalDON, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2Hilary is a bitch though.
    • dsuther2, on 10/13/2007, -15/+4good thing Bush was elected instead of Gore....
    • jonnyboy1544, on 10/19/2007, -10/+8That's a very uneducated comment. To say that war is on either party's agenda is asinine. Reagan and Clinton had their conflicts too that we could have stayed out of. And the current war is no Vietnam... yet.
    • Subliminational, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Nyah Nyah! My party's better than yours!
      • xJudahx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3And then there's the rest of us who choose to think for ourselves.
        • christor, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2And then there are those of us who, while thinking for ourselves, know a little game theory, understand the value of coalitions, and understand that certain basic propositions cash out into a large number of policy positions that are generally, though not universally, shared among the members of the coalition. I just love those "independents" who vote Republican in a place like Maine, with the effect of giving control of the Senate to the likes of Trent Lott and Bill Frist.
    • yfph, on 10/13/2007, -4/+11What about Kissinger receiving the Peace Prize? Kind of devalues it dontcha think?
    • JirkJiggler, on 10/13/2007, -8/+10LOL that is one of the funniest pieces of partisan tripe I've read in awhile!
      • mdoerr, on 10/13/2007, -3/+3Yea give me a break right? Way to turn a nice occurance into some partisan *****.
    • DoctorDiamond, on 10/13/2007, -4/+16Woodrow Wilson, another Democratic President, also won the Peace Prize.

      And really, to call Prize-winner Theodore Roosevelt simply a Republican does no justice to his remarkable progressive politics, anti-trust crusades, and promotion of federal regulation of commerce. Nor does it recognize the historical sea-change in Republican politics ushered in by Nixon, the switch of the South from Democratic to Republican in Federal elections, corporatization of the GOP/politics in general, etc.; really, trying to paint Roosevelt or Lincoln as having anything to do with current GOP sentiments is preposterous and rightfully dugg down.
    • elk1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Puts him in League with Yasir Arafat, Kofi Annan, and the IAEA all huge proponents of peace.
      • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Arafat, like Begin before him, went from terrorism to statesmanship. Kofi Annan was a good leader of the UN. And the IAEA was right about Saddam's atom program -- he didn't have one -- while President Cheney and the Neocons were wrong.
    • retspan, on 10/13/2007, -0/+3Webster called. He'd like to use your comment as an example for "disingenuous"
      • darkciti2, on 10/13/2007, -2/+2How old is that guy these days? He's so adorable.
        • retspan, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2I don't know. But why do you care? Are you one of those people who judge by age? race? creed?
          I think there's a name for that...
    • Humdain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Now that has to be the most ignorant statement I've heard today. Congratulations.
    • Optic7, on 10/18/2007, -3/+5That's somewhat unfair. The Republican party ended slavery in the US.
      • Swift2, on 10/14/2007, -1/+5What have they done for us since Teddy Roosevelt?
        • neuropsychguy, on 10/14/2007, -3/+2Supported Civil Rights more than Democrats. Balanced out crazy Democrats (who balance out crazy Republicans). I could go on but my view of what "Republicans" have done [that is good] is probably different than yours.
      • delafere, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2A *lot* of people ended slavery. A huge number of them were not Republicans. And I doubt the current party would be recognizable to Lincoln.
    • Herostratos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4So, the uber-leftie Norwegian government gives peace prices to other lefties. how strange.
      • iigloo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Uber-leftie? Damn, you must be american. This comment makes me so ***** angry. ***** american bourgeois pig. Man, I'm sorry but you almost makes me wanna become a communist. Although, in your eyes I probably am.
      • morndu111, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1Uber-leftie? You obviously have no idea what your talking about! The right side of politics are basically just as big as the left in Norway. And also, it is NOT the Norwegian government that gives out the prize, it is the Nobel Committee which is completely independent in its assessment of nominations for awards, it receives no instructions or directives.
    • slicedoranges, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2At first I was going to scold you for being so blunt, but then I realized you're right.
    • parasitewasp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2President Ronald Reagan defeated the USSR, ended the cold war, freeing millions of people. President Bush (41) rescued Kuwait from the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein and Freed the Kurds in nor then Iraq to establish their own government. President Bush (the present) Freed Iraq from Saddam Hussein and toppled the repressive regime of the Taliban. All while the Nobel peace prize committee gives a peace prize to Yasir Arafat, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore. Three people who strive to enslave people in the yoke of govenment, Yasir just enjoyed killing jews.
      • iigloo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, the communist regimes of eastern Europe was going to fall anyway, there was no way for them to keep going, their economy was busted. Communism doesn't work satisfyingly, well unless you slowly convert to capitalism whilst keeping the authoritarianism and oppression of the people like in China. I guess their "communism" "works".
      • bdorry, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Making the Middle East and the United States a more dangerous place to live in, whether you choose to believe the obvious or not, is definitely deserving of a peace prize.

        All while plunging our country into trillions in debt, I say give it to him.
    • debtchemo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Who cares, they are still freaking Socialsts & most people will never vote Socialist Democrats, unless they get a government hand out. Free people who want to change things will vote for Ron Paul.
  • david927, on 11/08/2007, -65/+81Fantastic!
    • SwingCorey, on 11/03/2007, -18/+9yes - f*$%in' FAN-tastic...

      They deliberately withhold the Peace Prize from Pope John Paul II, who led a flock of over 1 billion Catholics worldwide and helped bring down communism in Europe.
      But they give the award to a former VICE-president who couldn't even win his own state in the 2000 election, because he made a MOVIE? (a propaganda movie at that! Ask the UK govt, that cited 11 factual errors in his "masterpiece")

      FAN-tastic... Then again, these are the same people who gave the award to Yassar Arafat, so WTF do they know?
      • resplence, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10***** the pope. It's because of him that thousands are dying of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases -- not to mention overpopulating the planet -- in the developing world. And you've got to be kidding me if you think RELIGION is one of the culprits of the fall of communism. All he did was give 1 billion delusional people worldwide another pastime.
        • SwingCorey, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5You're right - John Paul II did nothing to help Lech Walesa with the Solidarity movement in Poland. He did nothing to try to foster peace between Jews and Christians. He did nothing to soothe 1000 years of tension between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics. He did nothing...
          ... why do I waste my typing on people with tin ears who only hear what they want to hear.
          • resplence, on 10/24/2007, -4/+3Yeah, he did lots of things to lessen the evils that his machine created. Were those amongst his various "reparations"? Giving him the Nobel peace prize under those circumstances would be akin to giving GWB the Nobel peace prize for withdrawing from Iraq.
          • HeavyWaters, on 10/24/2007, -5/+2Don't even bother trying to reason with this uneducated dolt Corey.
        • HeavyWaters, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1No no...I think it's ***** you.
        • rossmcd, on 10/24/2007, -2/+3@HeavyWaters
          "Don't even bother trying to reason with this uneducated dolt Corey."
          "No no...I think it's ***** you."

          You can't take both the intellectual high road AND the vulgar low road. Outflanking opponents may work in land battles, but not in rhetorical arguments.
      • HeavyWaters, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Exactly right Corey! These political noobs are so ignorant they don't even know how utterly fallacious An Inconvenient Lie is?
      • biotch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And how does he profit from this alleged propaganda?
        He is donating his proceeds from the movie.
    • chukd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7How does this contribute to Peace. There are people in the world that promote real peace and not a political agenda. Yes, the movie was a political agenda. Give it to someone that deserves it to someone who promotes peace.
  • Tomboys, on 10/18/2007, -65/+50Draft Gore Now!!! Please!
    http://draftgore.com/
    • magnusdopus, on 10/12/2007, -22/+6Gore as president is not such a good idea. He's actually more important to this world as the spokesperson against Global Warming. If he was president he would be too distracted by the war, recession (yep it's coming), labor relations, healthcare, education, etc.
      • ReinMasamuri, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4You mean like the internet bubble recession that Clinton caused? Yeah, I'm sure that another recession is coming with the crazy amount of cash that's coming in to businesses lately.
        • GiggleStick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I'm no fan of Clinton, but how did he cause the Internet Bubble? That was the business worlds stupid fault. That would have caused economic problems no matter who was president.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 10/13/2007, -14/+5Clinton did everything he could to hide the numbers in order to protect his legacy. The recession actually started before he left office.
          • ReinMasamuri, on 10/13/2007, -13/+5@charlotte_web (because digg's comment system still ***** sucks)
            Which caused the slight recession that would have happened, to blow up.
            You may think Enron or Worldcom were bad, but compared to the internet bubble it was almost nothing. And that's exactly how the internet bubble would have been had Clinton not covered most of it up.
        • annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Right, it's Clinton's fault we have a 9 trillion dollar National Dept, consistent years of budget deficits, a falling dollar and an escalating trade deficit. After 7 years of Bush, let's blame Clinton!
        • scottc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Clinton "caused" an "internet bubble recession"?? lol I've never heard that one before. Besides, presidents have very little effect on the economy. Nearly everything they try gets reversed by a successor long before it can have any significant effect.
          • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apparently, Republicans think he caused it by surfing to porn sites every night.

            Business did love him, of course, and loved Bob Rubin. But it's really funny to hear Bushies blaming Clinton for the misdeeds of business.
      • Navicerts, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3well, you are in line with what Gore has to say about the issue, you can't be all wrong.
    • ronaldinho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1you mean Draft BUSH and CHENEY now, right? I take it you were trying to be sarcastic
    • Tomboys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3For those who don't get it.. when I wrote "Draft Gore" I meant "Draft Gore for President." Do people think I mean draft him for the war. Is this why everyone is giving me a thumbs down?
      I mean lets get him in the Presidential race. He's one of the only people our country has anymore who has a little bit of world respect.
  • Falconwing, on 11/08/2007, -77/+368Wow. If this isn't the world community flipping its collective bird at Dubya, I dunno what would be.
    • ButterBuddha, on 10/16/2007, -21/+106If they don't mention it on the Cartoon Network, he'll never know...
    • Dhalgren, on 10/13/2007, -14/+4Hehe, I like tacos....
    • rhyspalmer, on 10/13/2007, -20/+11World Community? The Nobel Peace Prize is selected by 5 people from Norway..
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Nobel_Commi ...
      • Jonnio, on 10/13/2007, -18/+10Please leave this DIGG article. It is not a place for anything but sucking Gore's epeen. There is no room for logic, sense, or the understanding that Global Warming is a farce.
        • delafere, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2Oooo... demonstrate more logic and sense for us, Zippy.
      • brufleth, on 10/17/2007, -4/+12You're right, nobody has even heard of this award. It is like a viewer's choice award or something right?

        Idiot.
        • Neiby, on 10/13/2007, -3/+1The Peace prize is a joke. It's farsical ***** and means nothing. With that said, it couldn't have gone to a less deserving person. I didn't realize we had such an army of people on Digg so willing to suck Gore's dick. It's amazing to watch.
          • Swift2, on 10/13/2007, -0/+2Actually, the majority of messages here are little vicious lies against Gore.
    • mangasm, on 10/12/2007, -16/+6I'm glad they're degrading the previous quality of Nobel receivers to "get in the last word" at Bush.
      That's a great precedent.
    • reallydigginit, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11You just knew the right wing were going to scream like little bitches over this one. Glad they found time in their busy schedules of men's restrooms, bashing 12-year old children, and calling soldiers who oppose their war "phony" to bash Gore and the Nobel.
    • revo764, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1The most buried posts on a digg thread ever, but the buried posts make more sense than the dugg up ones. Extreme lefties are just as bad as the neo-cons. Actually there is no diffeence, both are puppets for the CFR!
  • Isidore, on 10/29/2007, -62/+205The scientific consensus is with the IPCC. Just as the scientific evidence and consensus is for evolution.

    The National Scientific Academies of the the following countries issued this statement
    “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.”

    National Academy of Sciences (US) Royal Society (United Kingdom) Chinese Academy of Sciences Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Académie des Sciences (france) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Australian Academy of Sciences Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts Caribbean Academy of Sciences Indonesian Academy of Sciences Royal Irish Academy Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id= ... (2001) http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20