The BBC published an article about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize entitled, “Gore says prize must spur action.” Gore and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s documentary was an important instrument in informing people about Global Warming and climate change.
I guess it is important that society is informed about climate change. And I believe that we should all work to decrease our carbon emissions, if not because it could slow global warming, then because it will help improve air quality. People should try to walk or ride a bike any time they can and should work to conserve electricity. I don’t know if we can reverse the effects of global warming; I don’t know if we can stop the effects of global warming. If it is possible to do either of these things I do know that it will take decades for a noticeable difference to occur.
Al Gore’s documentary did have some fascinating correlations and statistics, but statistics can be manipulated to say almost anything one wants. I’m just saying that even though An Inconvenient Truth sounded convincing it is important to realize that what Gore says statistics show may or may not be what is actually the case. This is important to realize whenever statistics are used. People can interpret statistics in some many different ways.
I think that the U.S. needs to take a more aggressive approach to cutting carbon emissions because the U.S. is one of the leading producers of carbon, which is not great for the air we breath and could be contributing to global warming. Global warming may or may not be because of carbon emissions, but the U.S. needs to take a stand and try to improve air quality and cut carbon emissions on a global scale.
As for Gore and the IPCC getting the Nobel Peace Prize, were there really no other candidates that have a more pressing message? Yes, climate change is important, but it is a long range area for change. Wouldn’t it be better to award a peace negotiator in Iraq, Israel, or Africa for achievements in war areas?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
There WERE other candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize. One of the nominees was a nun who hid Jews during World War II. I don't think it is right that Al Gore was chosen over her for the honor. Sure, global warming may be going on; but just look at Oklahoma. They have extended periods of heat and drought that are not related to carbon emissions. These periods are a normal weather pattern which are followed by short seasons of intense rain. Just this year, they had a hurricane. I don't think that has ever happened before. And look at the timing: they just came out of a three year drought! I believe that if global warming is occuring, it is a part of the world's normal weather cycles. Not long ago people were talking about the next ice age. We are clearly not in the next ice age and global warming will eventually resolve itself. Talking about global warming should not be enough for a Nobel Peace Prize.
I live smack dab in the middle of Oklahoma and I don't recall a hurricane. While I agree with you on many of your points, Oklahoma isn't a very good state. Oklahoma is fucking crazy when it comes to weather. It could snow in July and no one would bat an eye, lol.
I agree with you that global warming may be due to natural weather cycles. I have done some research on global warming and some scientists say that it may be caused by a period of solar inactivity or part of our solar system's orbit around the center of our galaxy. I definitely do not think that the greenhouse effect has as much to do with global warming as people (including Al Gore) would like to say it does.
People just want to make complicated issues black and white. It is a shame.
Here are a couple of different perspectives and some more information:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svens...
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/global-warming-the-great-lifesaver
"Al Gore’s documentary did have some fascinating correlations and statistics, but statistics can be manipulated to say almost anything one wants."
Well-put and 100% right.
Many of the people here on progressive say that Gore's statistics are wrong, wrong, and I've read that in other newspapers and online. What I'm confused about it is how the Nobel Prize Committee handled it--they are one of the most prestigious award-givers, how would they give their Peace Prize to someone with faulty stats?