Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize
news.yahoo.com — Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures needed to counteract it.
Aidenag- 103 diggs
- digg it
- Falconwing, on 10/16/2007, -7/+7Wow. If this isn't the world community flipping its collective bird at Dubya, I dunno what would be.
- Aidenag, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Now all he needs to to is announce he is running for president(PLEASE AL)
- bazzz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I don't know... maybe hes just a good actor, maybe he's just telling us what we want to hear, what we want to believe. But I *honestly* believe that the world would be a much better place if he had been president for the last 8 years (no war in iraq, ratification of Kyoto protocol, etc.). Additionally I really believe that especially the US would have been much stronger today and in the future (US national debts, no fighting for lies and corporate profit, better scholar system, general health-care, better distribution of wealth...)
- KMye, on 10/16/2007, -8/+3Arafat, Carter, El Baradei, now Gore...I would feel worse for this year's other nominees who might have actually contributed something towards resolving violent conflict in the world if this award hadn't become such a disgraceful joke already.
- burkinaboy, on 10/16/2007, -1/+12This will bring a fantastic level of worldwide awareness of global warming/climate change... my hope is that it drives people around the globe to work together and act to preserve our future.
- Isidore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The scientific evidence and 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
Science Council of Japan
Russian 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)
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 ... (2005) For the comments of other scientific bodies http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Statements_on ...
No one on the IPCC doubts that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS PLEASE CHECK THESE BEFORE POSTING: UK Government's Meteorological Office debunking of climate-change-denial myths http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/ ...
New Scientist magazine addressing the main skeptic claims http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that it can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0 - Isidore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@KMye and those who can't see the connection between climate change and peace/security.
The Nobel citation says:
"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."- KMye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I understand exactly the proposed link between global warming and conflict. The majority of conflicts in the world, large and small, are resource driven. There's a great series of annual books called "State of the World 200_" that addresses environmental problems, and issues such as water conflicts are always addressed.
I'm saying there are many of these problems going on now, irrespective of potential warming across the next century, and people making an actual difference trying to solve them. Anyone of these people would be a much better candidate than a hypocritical and self-aggrandizing egoist who's done little more about the issue than release a misleading and fallacious propaganda film and fly around the world giving $100,000 attacking the US for not supporting a treaty that was shot down 99-0 by the senate under his administration.- Chestnutridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Any suggestions of who these more deserving individuals might be?
- KMye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How about the Save Darfur alliance. If we're now giving out peace prizes to draw attention to issues that need solving now, is it really excusable to pass on this one?
- Chestnutridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Any suggestions of who these more deserving individuals might be?
- KMye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I understand exactly the proposed link between global warming and conflict. The majority of conflicts in the world, large and small, are resource driven. There's a great series of annual books called "State of the World 200_" that addresses environmental problems, and issues such as water conflicts are always addressed.
- thundershot69, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Good for him! Vote Ron Paul 2008!
- sjl127, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This just almost nullified the meaning of the Nobel Peace Prize. It's practically worthless now. Could it have been diluted anymore? Answer - NO. All you sheeple are pathetic.
- socialpyramid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1A win for hope! This is great news!
- jmbreland, on 10/13/2007, -3/+2The Nobel Peace Prize is a cheap political trinket that any self-respecting person would refuse. Giving it to a hack like Gore merely reaffirms its meaninglessness.
- Gursha, on 10/13/2007, -0/+0I find it interesting that Gore would win a Nobel Prize for Peace and not for Science. Isn't he this great expert on the environment? You'd think that the environment is closer to Science than to Peace.
I'm thinking that the Nobel people realize that the prize is more of a political statement rather than a testament of the great scientific impact of Gore. How important is Gore when his theories are based on unproven junk science.
I'd have more respect for the man if he lived the way a preached. He is a hypocrite.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is