swajames

The press release from the Nobel Foundation answers both of your questions. The Foundation considers climate change to be a threat to the security of mankind. It also considers Al Gore to be the individual who (along with the IPCC) has done most to promote behaviors necessary to create meaningful change, thus reducing the threat to the security of mankind.

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2007

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, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. 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.

Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world?s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man?s control.

Oslo, 12 October 2007

narvselius

Hear, hear! +1

HotLap

Agreed 1000+ Guys like Gore (and the American Entertainment Industry <Hollywood>) run around getting attention spouting things with which they have no knowledge...it is not a proven fact that mankind has anything to do with long-term weather cycles/patterns...as a counter to the Gore/Hollywood propaganda, you should read Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear"...now here's an eye opener - complete with footnotes referencing actual scientific studies!


I lost all respect for Al Gore when he was (and in my opinion still is) in the political arena...heard just after the announcement of the NPP that he "may" be thinking of throwing his hat into the presidental race"...sheesh. Don't forget this is the guy who claimed HE INVENTED THE INTERNET!!

People like Barbara Strisand (sp) and Alex Baldwin have no better idea than the average person on the street (probably less as their $$'s insulate them from having to deal with many of the day-to-day struggles that the rest of us have to face) what is happening with the world and what the causes/cures are...really burns me up to see them in the media trying to use their notoriety to influence political goals...was good to see in the last elections, the American public is getting smarter and not buying into that garbage!


We (mankind) are very arrogant to assume that we know all about this earth - given we only started really observing the enviornment and weather patterns 100 years ago...let's find out what the real issues are and approach them with the goal of making things better...not forwarding our individual fame/political goals.

swajames

He actually did no such thing. I don't know whether you know who Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn are, but they do credit Gore with what he was attempting to suggest in the interview that led to the misrepresentation that you are perpetuating.

To your final point, atmospheric science can be traced back for over 2000 years. I don't doubt that data availability and integrity is greater in recent years, but weather patterns have been observed and recorded for much longer than you suggest.

Rizbel

This just in!

Al Gore?s Oscar Award Should be Rescinded
Friday, 12 October 2007, 12:22 pm
Press Release: NZ Centre For Political Debate
Al Gore?s Oscar Award Should be Rescinded
Today Dr Muriel Newman, Director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, has written to the President of the Academy Awards, requesting that the Oscar presented to Al Gore for the Best Documentary film, ?An Inconvenient Truth?, be rescinded.

?With the release of the British High Court judgement overnight that found that ?An Inconvenient Truth? was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, it is clear that Al Gore embellished the truth to create dramatic effect
?Given that the Oscar Award was presented in the documentary category and not the drama category, the only appropriate action now is for the Academy to rescind the Award as it was clearly inappropriately classed as a documentary.

?The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism. Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this documentary is not.

?This situation is not unlike that confronting sports bodies, when their sports ?stars? are found to be drug cheats. In such cases, the sportsmen and women are stripped of their medals and titles, with the next-place getter elevated. While this is an extremely unpleasant duty, it is necessary if the integrity of competitive sport is to be protected.

?Just this week Olympic gold medal winner Marion Jones has been stripped of her titles and medals.

?If the integrity of the Academy Awards is to remain intact, is wholly appropriate that Al Gore be stripped of his ?Best Documentary? film Oscar.

?If the Academy wishes to acknowledge the work of people like Al Gore they should form a new category of film called ?Political Drama?. That?s how ?An Inconvenient Truth? should be categorised?, Dr Newman said.

swajames

From The Times in London:

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

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

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


The main purpose of this case was an attempt to ban the screening of the film at all secondary schools. The Judge declined to do that.

fjwagner

Michael Moore and Al Gore should get together and compare notes to further their careers in creating embellished documentaries that push their personal agendas. Time will show that throwing money at a natural occurrence was a complete and total waste that harmed economies. The Czech Republic president is the only world leader willing to stand up to the farce.

JetBlack5OC

+1

Bimmer32

Who's counting the methane from Cow farts, certain algae in the artic tundra, and carbon emmissions from volcanic eruptions that occur quite often below and above the sea around the world?

Folks, mankind has contribute to increased carbon emmission, but whether that's the main contributor is questionable. I for one, is an accredited LEED Professional; I believe in sustainable designs, but the arguement that if everyone does "x" to save "x" is very hypothetical and therectical at most. I do accept the fact that if you build a sustainable technology, albeit that it cost more upfront, the cost savings in the long run and the enjoyment of the product outweigh the upfront cost.

Certainly, a sport car or a BMW 5 series is not considered an environmentally friendly vehicle because it emits lots of carbon.

Now I have to grow more trees to offset my carbon emission everytime I stomp on that V8.

swajames

I don't see any of this as hypothetical or theoretical, at the end of the day there is absolutely no downside whatsoever in taking reasonable steps to reduce our personal energy consumption and reduce our personal impact on the environment (it isn't just carbon). We have a collective responsibility to use all of our resources prudently and to reduce our consumption of these resources. The US and Canada are two of the largest energy consumers in the world (the US in absolute terms, Canada on a per capita basis) and in the US in particular it's difficult to justify - as I understand it, other large economies including Japan, Germany the UK consume much less energy on a per capita basis.