Al Gore wins Nobel peace prize

[gravelclimber]

After to going to a few dodgy types in the past such as Yasser Arafat it's great to see the Nobel awarded to Al Gore (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/12/news/13nobel.php) for his work communicating the facts behind climate change.

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded Friday to Al Gore, the former American vice president, and to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their work to alert the world to the threat of global warming.

Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, "is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted," the Nobel citation said.

The United Nations committee, a network of 2,000 scientists, has produced two decades of scientific reports that have "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming," the citation said.

Top work!

[faith_rider]

Great news I agree....have posted a blog about my thoughts on the issue over at:

www.howtosaveanearth.wordpress.com (shameless plug)

I don't agree with some of his science and methods but the awareness he has raised can not be questioned. Without him I have little doubt that we would still not even acknowledge climate change existed!

[Jordan!]

What a bloody legend.
Good on him.

[Elbo]

Good on him. But I fail to see how informing the world of climate change does anything for world peace. Or is the Nobel Peace Prize just a name as such? :confused:

[Octane_Matty]

some of his statements are questionable

but the movie he produced is certainly a step in the right direction

good work

[johnny]

It should of gone to George W. Bush.

Greatest champion peace has ever had.

[Ivan]

It should of gone to George W. Bush.

Greatest champion peace has ever had.

Hello CIA?

[dcrofty]

Anyone seen the push on in the states to get him to run for president again?

Apparently their slogan is "He's won it once before so he can do it again".

[faith_rider]

With regards to him running again, I don't think many of you (only us Apple nerds) would read fake Steve Jobs, but he wrote a brilliant article on the very topi of Al running again. Very powerful read:

http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/10/dear-al-now-you-must-run.html

Quite emotionally provocative for a normally comedic blog. For the record and those who don't know...the real CEO of Appl e (Steve Jobs) is a huge advocate of getting Al to run again (Al is on their board of directors)

[dcrofty]

I really don't want him to run again.

If he does he will get sidetracked by other issues (fixing Dubbya's messes for instance) and have to become a politician again.

He can have a much bigger and better impact where he is, especially with a nice shiny peace prize to add to the credibility

[Dr. Nob]

I think I deserve the award more then him.

Come on this is crap.

he made a movie and flew around the world to tell everybody about it.

Now before anybody says I'm Andrew Bolts bum chum (christ I'd like to punch that guy in the face) I'm not disputing climate change or anything it's just that he doesn't deserve a Nobel PEACE Prize.

Does this mean that NOBODY else in the world has done anything to stop half the worlds population killing the other half of the world?

[bitterbro]

I thaught it was disgracefull he got $170 million in prize money and he gave it to climate research! Take some bloody action! money won't fill the ozone gap or lower tempuratures! give it to needy African people starving!

[gravelclimber]

I thaught it was disgracefull he got $170 million

He got $170 million for the Nobel did he? Yeah right

More like $1.5 million split between him and the IPCC. He gave his half to climate science research. It's better than spending it on coke and hookers.

[faith_rider]

He 'donated' his money to his own organization who spend it solely on advertising about the the issue...not taking action on it...

On of the things he does I don't agree with..

[johnny]

Yes but what kind of action can he take? It is one NGO, not a global enviro-government.

States need to take action. People must force the state to take action. Al Gore tells the people why tey should force the government.

[brisneyland]

I think I deserve the award more then him.

Come on this is crap.

he made a movie and flew around the world to tell everybody about it.

Now before anybody says I'm Andrew Bolts bum chum (christ I'd like to punch that guy in the face) I'm not disputing climate change or anything it's just that he doesn't deserve a Nobel PEACE Prize.

Does this mean that NOBODY else in the world has done anything to stop half the worlds population killing the other half of the world?

WHAT THE FUCK HAVE YOU DONE?
- Zach De La Rocha

Seriously, when you've done as much for any selfless cause as Al Gore as done, get back to me.

Edit:
Johnny is on the money. Awareness is vastly undervalued, and it is this that enables the people to exercise their democratic rights.

[Dr. Nob]

WHAT THE FUCK HAVE YOU DONE?
- Zach De La Rocha

Seriously, when you've done as much for any selfless cause as Al Gore as done, get back to me.

Edit:
Johnny is on the money. Awareness is vastly undervalued, and it is this that enables the people to exercise their democratic rights.

I've spent 12 hour in the last 4 days either building tracks and running a race.

He has done FAR more than me on, well, pretty much everything, but my point was that the Nobel PEACE prize should go to somebody who has done more to promote peace. Someone who stopped two tribes in Africa killing each other or tried to get the Iraqis to like each other.

Couldn't they have give him a science based Nobel Prize?

[nizai]

A science based Nobel prize? hes no more a scientist than he is a peacemaker.

And nothing would rile up climate change skeptics more than reinforcing the "science" of the debate.

I think it was a really slow year on the peace front, with so many people keen on knocking eachother off.

Had to give it to someone. Or merely a press release saying "you all suck, there will be no prize this year".

N

[dcrofty]

He has done FAR more than me on, well, pretty much everything, but my point was that the Nobel PEACE prize should go to somebody who has done more to promote peace. Someone who stopped two tribes in Africa killing each other or tried to get the Iraqis to like each other.


Perhaps if you consider some of the longer term raffifications of climate change including the vast potential for conflict over water resources and the number of environmental refugees predicted to eventuate you could see that any acton now by Gore to mitigate global warming and its effects will have very significant effects in the future for world peace.

[n00b]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/n000b/1006_mbp_awareness.jpg


Well, my work here is done. I've killed MBP, and now I must save the world from something else. Maybe I'll make a movie. A movie starring me. Then people will take me super serial.

[Customjimmy]

Ah, the Nobel prizes. Off topic, Alfred Nobel was actually a total bastard. He invented dynamite and killed two of his family in the process. He fuelled more death and destruction than anyone ever before. After he read his own obituary (an editorial mistake) describing him as a war-mongering prick, he donated his fortune for the nobel prizes.

Back on track, considering they once gave the nobel peace prize to Henry Kissinger it's a bit short on credibility anyway! I was thinking that giving Gore the prize was a bit of a slight on people like Rachel Carson or David Suzuki who actually did stuff on climate change but the fact is that the US congress is now going to implement emissions targets etc after George W rattles off into the sunset - this would have been unthinkable a few years ago. That alone is a pretty good effort. Still, doesn't matter a fark if China doesn't pull it's economic head in, and that my friends, ain't gonna happen.

[Dr. Nob]

Perhaps if you consider some of the longer term raffifications of climate change including the vast potential for conflict over water resources and the number of environmental refugees predicted to eventuate you could see that any acton now by Gore to mitigate global warming and its effects will have very significant effects in the future for world peace.

So are we to give somebody an award for stopping something which hasn't happened yet?

I believe that climate change is going to be the biggest problem to face the world in the next century and Aus is the driest continent in the world but I just can't see what Gore has done to win the Peace Prize.

And I agree with what somebody said above what made Gore more worthy of the prize over David Suzuki et all.

I'm thinking they should have saved their money and not given anybody the award.

[gravelclimber]

Rachel Carson or David Suzuki

Rachel Carson? Are you serious? She wrote Silent Spring a long time ago about the dangers of synthetic pesticides. She died in 1964.

David Suzuki hasn't done any actual 'stuff' on climate change that I've heard about. He's probably covered it in his telle show or whatever, but Gore has been on the case since the early 80s.

[nizai]

So are we to give somebody an award for stopping something which hasn't happened yet?


Yeah its the Minority Report of Awards ;)

[red_d0g]

his movie showed me an insight that i didn't know about global warming, it is a good watch and a wake up call
I've read an heard about many accusations against Gore like animal violence, cutting holes in the snow in greenland, burning huge amounts of rubber to prove a point, not sure if any of it is true but if it is why would he do that if he is trying to stop global warming?

[Customjimmy]

Rachel Carson? Are you serious? She wrote Silent Spring a long time ago about the dangers of synthetic pesticides. She died in 1964.

David Suzuki hasn't done any actual 'stuff' on climate change that I've heard about. He's probably covered it in his telle show or whatever, but Gore has been on the case since the early 80s.

My point wasn't that they should have been in the running this year obviously but that there are hordes of environmentalists going back as far as Thoreau even who got very little recognition even though they were decades ahead of their time.

Gore received his prize for being a populist, not a scientist and it is very much easier to convince people of climate change now that it's underway as opposed to former environmentalists who were visionaries. Had Gore made this film in the 70s or 80s it would not have had a cinematic release, let alone win the Nobel peace prize. In the end he produced a film which echoes the research of thousands of people who weren't him. That was my point.:)

[gravelclimber]

Had Gore made this film in the 70s or 80s it would not have had a cinematic release, let alone win the Nobel peace prize. In the end he produced a film which echoes the research of thousands of people who weren't him.

Gore shared the Nobel with the IPCC. ie. the scientists who did the research his film was based on.

As to what Gore was doing in the 70s and 80s.

From Science mag:
The prize comes to Gore after a long career as an international leader on climate change issues. In the 1970s, then-congressperson Gore held the first hearings on the problem, bringing climate science into the national spotlight.

i.e. he was decades ahead of his time

As far as recognition of others' environmental work for the Nobel peace prize:


From Nature:
The prize has been given for environmental work before. In 2004 it went to Kenyan biologist and environmentalist Wangari Muta Maathai — who delivered a speech to the Potsdam meeting via live video from Nairobi — for initiating the ‘Green Belt Movement’ in Africa.

[Gripper]

Sorry, I'm not convinced about global warming in the context of human activity v's natural circumstance.

[bazza]

knowledge brings good governance in many cases. you can spend all the money on the best research in the world and employing every top scientist in the world but at the end of the day if it doesn't mean anything to the local councils who need to impliment it and the communities involved in pressuring these bodies, most likely it will not happen. therefore i do not think that his spending of a large amount of money on advertising is such a bad thing. it simply depends on the content of this advertising that should be judged.

[Norco_VPS]

i disagree with al gores movie an inconvenient truth
and i know that 11 of his facts are wrong
and that his basis is tests run only in America

[Matt H]

i disagree with al gores movie an inconvenient truth
and i know that 11 of his facts are wrong
and that his basis is tests run only in America

Care to elaborate... with sources?

[Norco_VPS]

ok
the temp graph that he uses the sisor lift on
based only on america
go to herald sun article on 11\10\17 about Al Gore

[Customjimmy]

Gore shared the Nobel with the IPCC. ie. the scientists who did the research his film was based on.

As to what Gore was doing in the 70s and 80s.

From Science mag:


i.e. he was decades ahead of his time

As far as recognition of others' environmental work for the Nobel peace prize:


From Nature:

Point well taken.

[placebo]

After to going to a few dodgy types in the past such as Yasser Arafat it's great to see the Nobel awarded to Al Gore (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/12/news/13nobel.php) for his work communicating the facts behind climate change.

Top work!

You forgot Shimon Peres as a joint recipient of the award that year. He was murdered by an Israeli extremist opposed to any peaceful resolution with the Palestinians. I guess he must have been really dodgy. Yitzak Rabin looks a bit shady too.

It should of gone to George W. Bush.

Greatest champion peace has ever had.

In a bitter and ironic fashion, probably yes.

He got $170 million for the Nobel did he? Yeah right

More like $1.5 million split between him and the IPCC. He gave his half to climate science research. It's better than spending it on coke and hookers.

I disagree. I support South American freedom fighters, single mothers, and their economic empowerment! It's a win-win relationship! ;)

Ah, the Nobel prizes. Off topic, Alfred Nobel was actually a total bastard. He invented dynamite and killed two of his family in the process. He fuelled more death and destruction than anyone ever before. After he read his own obituary (an editorial mistake) describing him as a war-mongering prick, he donated his fortune for the nobel prizes.

He could acknowledge failure, and experienced remorse. He's got two up on the current president of the USA. According to him the USA lost the Vietnam war only because they were a bunch of quitters who chickened out. Imagine what they could have done if he'd signed up and fought. He'd shown that John Kerry a thing or two I'd bet!

Rachel Carson? Are you serious? She wrote Silent Spring a long time ago about the dangers of synthetic pesticides. She died in 1964.

David Suzuki hasn't done any actual 'stuff' on climate change that I've heard about. He's probably covered it in his telle show or whatever, but Gore has been on the case since the early 80s.

Suzuki has been a major environmental activist for longer than I can remember. He coauthored one of my second year genetics texts, and has produced documentaries, and written many articles. He does a lot of talking and interviews on these subjects. He is a warm, humorous person, whilst being earnest and informed about these issues. His sit ins with Dr. Karl on the morning show on JJJ used to be awesome. It's ironic how Gore never managed to get the Kyoto protocol ratified by the USA while he was VP.

Carson's book was one of the first to warn of the dangers of indiscriminant use of pesticides, and the negatives. It contributed significantly to the change in attitude to the environment. As an aside, bee colonies in the USA have been under environmental stress and have been failing. The loss in pollination capacity has led to agricultural downturn. They've been importing bees from Australia and other countries apparently.

So are we to give somebody an award for stopping something which hasn't happened yet?
award.

It's called a "preventative war", and George Bush says you don't need permission under international law and it's not a war crime. It's right as long as you win, even if they don't have WMDs.

[gravelclimber]

You forgot Shimon Peres as a joint recipient of the award that year. He was murdered by an Israeli extremist opposed to any peaceful resolution with the Palestinians. I guess he must have been really dodgy. Yitzak Rabin looks a bit shady too.


Shimon is very much alive and still in Government. Yitzak is not looking so flash though. But hey, all those Semites look the same. :rolleyes:

[Customjimmy]

It's disturbingly like discussing the Oscars, don't you think? The structure of DNA (awarded to the wrong people, BTW), the polio vaccine, the discovery of radium - all of these things pretty much awarded themselves. How times change.

[placebo]

Shimon is very much alive and still in Government. Yitzak is not looking so flash though. But hey, all those Semites look the same. :rolleyes:

I got it the wrong way around! D'oh! :o Confusing the two, and infering that there are those on both sides of the conflict opposed to peace hardly counts as anti-semitism. :confused:

[gravelclimber]

I got it the wrong way around! D'oh! Confusing the two, and infering that there are those on both sides of the conflict opposed to peace hardly counts as anti-semitism.

I'm sure it doesn't. Peres, Rabin, Arafat...they're all Semites. Rabin opposed to peace? That's a big call.

The structure of DNA (awarded to the wrong people, BTW)

Not at all; it's just that Rosalind Franklin should have got it as well.

[placebo]

Rabin opposed to peace? That's a big call.


I didn't do a good job expressing myself I'm afraid. That's the total opposite of what I meant. Those Israelis who opposed him, and the one who shot him, were the ones I was thinking of. :o

[gravelclimber]

I didn't do a good job expressing myself I'm afraid. That's the total opposite of what I meant. Those Israelis who opposed him, and the one who shot him, were the ones I was thinking of.

Yeah, it was a very sad thing. The Middle East would have been a very different place had Rabin survived. I lived in Israel for a while just after the assassination and pretty much every one I came in to contact with (basically, non-fanatical types) was pretty devastated over the his death and the lost opportunities.

[FR Drew]

It should of gone to George W. Bush.


I heard the other day that the Nobel Panel had voted that Gore won it but the US Supreme Court had decided to award it to Bush.:p

[gravelclimber]

Sadly, one of the co-Nobel Laureates for the discovery of the structure of DNA, James Watson, showed what a true arsehole he is yesterday. It is kind of sad such a wanker (http://http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece) could be such a great scientist:

One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.

James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.

[Customjimmy]

Not at all; it's just that Rosalind Franklin should have got it as well.

Pfftt. She did the work. They published the paper. Fair's fair:D.

Actually they both published in the same issue of Nature though Watson & Crick (and the other guy, can't remember) used her rock-solid crystallography results (without her knowledge) to define the structure of DNA. She also discovered it was double-stranded and defined the sugar/phosphate backbone of DNA. She may possibly have shared the prize if she wasn't dead in 1962.

As for Watson, he's just published his memoirs entitled "Avoid Boring People". Pure salesmanship, that's what it is.

[gravelclimber]

Pfftt. She did the work. They published the paper. Fair's fair:D.

Actually they both published in the same issue of Nature though Watson & Crick (and the other guy, can't remember) used her rock-solid crystallography results (without her knowledge) to define the structure of DNA. She also discovered it was double-stranded and defined the sugar/phosphate backbone of DNA. She may possibly have shared the prize if she wasn't dead in 1962.

As for Watson, he's just published his memoirs entitled "Avoid Boring People". Pure salesmanship, that's what it is.

Oops, forgot; no posthumous Nobels.

Anyway, you inspired me to go back and read the two original papers. Watson and Crick's is amazing in that it is so short (just an article) with relatively little detail. Also, Franklin's paper discussed the helical structure of DNA, not the double helical. To me, Watson and Crick's observation of specific purine to pyrimidine base-pairing between each DNA strand, with the sequence of one strand complementing the other and thus providing a mechanism for DNA replication, is the most important breakthrough of the research.

On the doing all the work subject, I've had similar issues in the past. Often technical staff, who actually do all the bench work and produce the results that go into a paper, are not mentioned on the paper. My old boss used to say it's the ideas and not the labour that are important, hence technical staff working for me miss out unfairly in my view. That's the way it often is though.

[Customjimmy]

[QUOTE=gravelclimber;1149482]Oops, forgot; no posthumous Nobels.

Anyway, you inspired me to go back and read the two original papers. Watson and Crick's is amazing in that it is so short (just an article) with relatively little detail. Also, Franklin's paper discussed the helical structure of DNA, not the double helical. To me, Watson and Crick's observation of specific purine to pyrimidine base-pairing between each DNA strand, with the sequence of one strand complementing the other and thus providing a mechanism for DNA replication, is the most important breakthrough of the research.
QUOTE]

Yeah, wouldn't it be nice to send such a short article off to Nature and get it in! As far as publishing goes, tech staff sometimes get added to the author list but the contribution must be an investigative one (obtaining experimental data) and must be a considerable part of the project, otherwise an acknowledgement is given. There's actually no hard and fast rule about it, it's at the discretion of whoever's coordinating and ultimately responsible for the publication.

There are many heads of department etc. who haven't worked in a lab for 20 years but are essentially responsible for the research and so end up as last author on all department publications - I published a paper this year with a biologist who has over 1000 publications! (I now have 1:)).

I think I've skewed this thread sufficiently off-topic now!