Join 3,413 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Gore wins Nobel prize
October 12, 2007 2:17 AM   Subscribe

Albert A. Gore Jr. shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on 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." Still not running for president.
posted by blacklite (213 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

 
That medal is going straight into the lockbox.
posted by Vic Morrow's Personal Vietnam at 2:23 AM on October 12, 2007 [13 favorites]


Bravo, Al!
posted by maryh at 2:28 AM on October 12, 2007


I can't wait to see the press release from Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
posted by Poolio at 2:32 AM on October 12, 2007


Yet on the tail of this controversy in the UK. In other news, the Northwest Passage is open for business.
posted by maryh at 2:38 AM on October 12, 2007


Maybe the Supreme Court can decide whether Al or the IPCC gets the Prize now.
posted by srboisvert at 2:46 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


You know who else won 1/2 a Nobel Peace Prize?
posted by Poolio at 2:51 AM on October 12, 2007 [5 favorites]


You know who else made a post about this? Pretty close, though.
posted by bunglin jones at 2:58 AM on October 12, 2007


You know who else made a post about this? Pretty close, though.

The poster agrees this his post should be deleted and this one kept.
posted by Poolio at 2:59 AM on October 12, 2007


The poster agrees this his post should be deleted and this one kept.
Oh. Sorry. Bit drunky.
posted by bunglin jones at 3:00 AM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


Maybe Skeptic and I could each get 1/2 of the Metafilter Newsfilter Peace Prize. I can pretend to be an organization if it helps.
posted by blacklite at 3:05 AM on October 12, 2007


Maybe Skeptic and I could each get 1/2 of the Metafilter Newsfilter Peace Prize. I can pretend to be an organization if it helps.

Whatever happens, I'm gonna deny it.
posted by Poolio at 3:17 AM on October 12, 2007


Cheers, Al!
posted by kuujjuarapik at 3:18 AM on October 12, 2007


The rationale is a bit tenuous. The prize is for those who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses".

The committee apparently argue that drawing attention to global warming has a tendency to reduce future tensions which might arise through climate change, and hence can be seen as work for fraternity between nations.

But you could make similar arguments about any work which seems to do any kind of good. Accepting this argument turns the Peace prize into a prize for anything good. I think this removes the point of the award and frustrates Nobel's intention.
posted by Phanx at 3:26 AM on October 12, 2007


So, you then must also object to Elie Wiesel and Martin Luther King winning the award, eh?
posted by fandango_matt at 3:37 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Mazel Tov Mr. Gore.
posted by brevator at 3:38 AM on October 12, 2007


Phanx, There's no "might arrise throuh climate change" about it. Water is the real source of many of the big international conflicts, including India vs. Pakistan and Israel vs. Palestine. Such conflicts are forced to become genocides or migrations if the water supply declines sufficiently.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:40 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Come on, Ghandi worked for decades promoting peace and nonviolence and he didn't get a damn thing, though they were finally planning on it before he was assassinated.

Al Gore makes a movie. A movie of one of his lectures that has stirred up more controvercy than it has promoted results. Phanx is right, the Peace Prize is more a "We Like This Liberal" award than actually for promoting peace. Al Gore deserves it just about as much as the also-nominated Rush Limbaugh.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 3:44 AM on October 12, 2007


Further to maryh's note on the UK controversy, Wired has the details of the nine points where Judge Burton ruled that AIT departed from the IPCC consensus. 1, 2, 3

On preview, I see that Mr.Encyclopedia has already linked the first part, but I'll leave the post for parts 2 & 3 anyway
posted by Jakey at 3:48 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Mr. Encyclopedia, anyone can be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Charles Manson, Tookie Williams, and Mumia Abu-Jamal are among the thousands of people who have been nominated.
posted by fandango_matt at 3:49 AM on October 12, 2007


Mr.E, Al Gore didn't stir up controversy, the right wing deniers and industry shills did.
posted by octothorpe at 3:49 AM on October 12, 2007 [3 favorites]


Still not running for president.

Good. On the matter of Middle East warmongering a Gore-Lieberman administration would have been little different than Bush-Cheney - with the possible difference that Lieberman would not have allowed his dog to dither on Iran as much as Cheney has.

Failing to win the Presidency in 2000 helped him to avoid being the author of the American disaster in Iraq and paved the way for receiving the peace prize. Funny how things work out.
posted by three blind mice at 3:52 AM on October 12, 2007


fandango_matt & Mr.Encyclopedia are both wrong.
Nomination to the Nobel Peace Prize is by invitation only. The Nobel Committee sends confidential forms to persons who are competent and qualified to nominate. The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later. [Nobel Prize.org].


Limbaugh was "nominated" by the Landmark Legal Foundation — who are most assuredly not competent and qualified to nominate.
posted by Poolio at 3:56 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


posted by Mr.Encyclopedia the Peace Prize is more a "We Like This Liberal" award

So Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Kissinger are liberals! Welcome to Mr. Encyclopedia's Bizarro World!
posted by fandango_matt at 3:56 AM on October 12, 2007 [3 favorites]


Mr. Encyclopedia actually, nomination for any Nobel prize, including peace, is closed, meaning that nominations are only accepted from certain entities not the general public. Limbaugh is *NOT* repeat, not, a Nobel prize nominee just because some right wing idiot sent a letter to the Nobel committee.

Though, to be honest after Henry Fucking Kissenger got the Nobel Peace prize it did make the entire thing seem pointless. I mean they might as well have given the Peace prize to Ginghis Khan...
posted by sotonohito at 3:57 AM on October 12, 2007


Yes, Poolio. And, as I said, ANYONE can be nominated.
posted by fandango_matt at 3:59 AM on October 12, 2007


Congrats to Mr. Gore and IPCC. They are doing way more good than not.


Totally insane derail:
But I can't help but feel that he whimped out in 2000. That he should have done everything, everything, no matter how unseemly no matter how grasping, no matter how borderline illegal, to win that election and he just up and quit. The going got tough and he decided to call it a day. And stuck us with Bush.

And I fucking hate him for that. It's insane, sure, but I hold him personally responsable for whimping out on the country for folding at the one moment when it mattered most he stand strong. What was he afraid of? That they would do to him what they did to Clinton? Is it that simple to take over a country? We won't use guns, we'll just really, really hurt his fucking feelings, and for like four years!

Everytime I see him, everytime I hear him speak I hear concession, and then this Bush madness. He is not the guy who didn't win, he's the guy who opened the door for them, gave them the keys and showed 'em where the light switch was.

He was the last rat jumping from the sinking ship, except that he had the opportunity, maybe the best opportunity, to keep things from up-ending. I remember seeing pictures of him at the party held when he had finally given his concession and here was a guy who looked so profoundly relieved. I gotta say I hated him for it. If he didn't want the fight in the first place, he should never have thrown his hat into the ring...

This is his consolation prize, "respectability." The rest of us? We're stuck with madness.

posted by From Bklyn at 4:02 AM on October 12, 2007 [11 favorites]


I like this liberal.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 4:02 AM on October 12, 2007


Yes, Poolio. And, as I said, ANYONE can be nominated.

A nomination that is not a nomination does not count as a nomination.
posted by Poolio at 4:03 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Sorry Poolio, you're wrong:

Who is eligible for the Prize

The candidates eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize are those nominated by qualified persons who have received an invitation from the Nobel Committee to submit names for consideration. No one can nominate himself or herself.

Below is a brief description of the process involved in selecting the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates.

September – Nomination forms are sent out. The Nobel Committee sends out invitation letters containing confidential forms to individuals qualified to nominate – members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; university chancellors, professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; Nobel Peace Prize Laureates of previous years; board members of organizations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

February – Deadline for submission. The Committee bases its assessment on nominations that must be postmarked no later than 1 February each year. Nominations received after this date are included in the following year's discussions. In recent years, the Committee has received well over 140 different nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The numbers of nominating letters are much higher, as many are for the same candidates.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:10 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


If he didn't want the fight in the first place, he should never have thrown his hat into the ring...

He listened to his consultants the whole way. They told him to do the wrong thing (at every turn) and he listened.
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:10 AM on October 12, 2007


America, this must be tough for you, I know. It's never easy when your ex cleans up and moves on before you do. It must be even worse seeing that your ex is an Oscar-winning Nobel laureate now.

It's been almost eight years now, America, and I think it's time for you to move on too. I mean, you still got your looks, your personality, and you're still with that guy you cheated on Al with started dating in 2000. He's not so bad, is he? I mean besides all the fighting and name calling and stuff. He talks about you a lot, at least. And I'm sure all those rumors of him cheating on you with that Corporation hussy are just that.

It's not easy for me to say this, America, but maybe you should just settle and be happy with what you got. Maybe... maybe you don't deserve to get your ex back. You were kind of a jerk to him after all.

So lets spend a few more minutes here in the bathroom, America. You finish crying then we'll clean you up and send you back out to the party. I hear that nice Obama fellow's been asking about you.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:15 AM on October 12, 2007 [126 favorites]


In recent years, the Committee has received well over 140 different nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Right... and Rush Limbaugh's isn't one of them. The 140 nominations were from people/groups that were invited to submit names... the Landmark Legal Foundation is not one of those groups. Their nomination was unsolicited, and therefore does not count.
posted by Poolio at 4:16 AM on October 12, 2007


posted by From Bklyn But I can't help but feel that he whimped out in 2000. That he should have done everything, everything, no matter how unseemly no matter how grasping, no matter how borderline illegal, to win that election and he just up and quit. The going got tough and he decided to call it a day. And stuck us with Bush.

Al Gore didn't stick us with Bush. American voters stuck us with Bush. Don't blame Al Gore for the stupidity of your fellow Americans.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:17 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


American voters stuck us with Bush.

Well...twelve of them did, anyway.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:21 AM on October 12, 2007 [10 favorites]


Nine, I mean. It's too early. Too early to be clever!!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:21 AM on October 12, 2007 [5 favorites]


The 1973 We Like This Liberal Prize winner: Henry Kissinger.
posted by DU at 4:23 AM on October 12, 2007


Poolio, when names are submitted regardless of who submits them, those names by definition are nominations. That's why "Nobel Peace Prize nominee" is a meaningless designation.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:27 AM on October 12, 2007


So lets spend a few more minutes here in the bathroom, America.

*taps foot*
posted by Poolio at 4:28 AM on October 12, 2007 [5 favorites]


fandango_matt - You're wrong. When the 2007 nominations are made public in the year 2057, the LLF's submission of Limbaugh's name will not be among them.
posted by Poolio at 4:31 AM on October 12, 2007


It's a moot point anyways, since Gore is now a Nobel Laureate, and Limbaugh is still a big, fat idiot.
posted by Poolio at 4:34 AM on October 12, 2007 [7 favorites]


Several completetely insane quack "alternative medicine" whack jobs routinely claim to be "Nobel prize nominees" (presumably in medicine) because some whack job follower or crony sent a letter to Stockholm. The problem is that there is no legal constraint on calling someone a "nominee" whether or not the nomination is accepted by the committee as legitimate. What we have here is a semantic confusion.

That said, what a nice bit of news in these dark times.
posted by spitbull at 4:35 AM on October 12, 2007


In 2057, please remind me to log on to MetaFilter so we may continue the debate over the definition of "nomination." I will be 93 years old.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:37 AM on October 12, 2007


Mr.E, Al Gore didn't stir up controversy, the right wing deniers and industry shills did.

Well, I didn't see the movie, but the book wasn't really about global warming, it was about Al Gore. If the bookstore hadn't been an hour away, I would have returned it. I was quite liking him after his great civil rights speeches when Bush started his coup, but he strikes me now as hopelessly self-absorbed.

I'm not at all a global warming denier, but if the movie was anything like the book, this was a horribly misdirected Peace Prize.
posted by Malor at 4:40 AM on October 12, 2007


In 2057, please remind me to log on to MetaFilter so we may continue the debate over the definition of "nomination." I will be 93 years old.

I hope you live to 94 so you can see my non-nomination.
posted by Poolio at 4:42 AM on October 12, 2007


I'm glad for Al.

And I wish he'd run, simply because I'm afraid that otherwise, Hillary will win the nomination and Giuliani will win the general election. Giuliani is batshit insane, and should be in a straightjacket. A year out, and he keeps me up at night.
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:44 AM on October 12, 2007


I've seen "An Inconvenient Truth." Global warming is still BS. Do people forget that this planet is pretty much always approaching or receding from an ice age?
posted by autodidact at 4:48 AM on October 12, 2007


I bet Hillary's not so thrilled with this news.
posted by DenOfSizer at 4:49 AM on October 12, 2007


Oh, autodidact. Not this old canard again. Aren't they calling you on Redstate?
posted by DenOfSizer at 4:49 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'm afraid that otherwise, Hillary will win the nomination and Giuliani will win the general election

FWIW, a new Quinnipiac poll showed Hillary leading Giuliani in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida... she was the only Dem leading him in all 3 states.
posted by Poolio at 4:50 AM on October 12, 2007


I've seen "An Inconvenient Truth." Global warming is still BS. Do people forget that this planet is pretty much always approaching or receding from an ice age?
posted by autodidact


Anti-eponysterical?
posted by afu at 4:57 AM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


FWIW, a new Quinnipiac poll showed Hillary leading Giuliani in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida... she was the only Dem leading him in all 3 states.

That brings some relief, but if the press behaves the way it did in 2000 and 2004, we could still be screwed. They'll be making fun of her hairstyle, while ignoring Giuliani's shenannigans, like they did with Bush v. Gore & Bush v. Kerry. All they have to do is encloak him with their "mantle of inevitibility" and it's game over.
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:58 AM on October 12, 2007


You go Al!!!
What a trifecta - 1st - popular vote for POTUS 2000, then an Academy Award, now the Nobel. He's entitled to be his smug self.
I like him anyway and wish he would run.
posted by readery at 5:01 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


on preview: Anti-eponysterical?

Heh. I was just going to post that it was eponysterical. A little learning and all that.
posted by effwerd at 5:01 AM on October 12, 2007 [3 favorites]


Global warming is still BS.

Thank you, Mr. Science. Completely wrong, but thanks. The scientific community is in complete agreement that global warming exists; the causes and consequences of the warming are under debate.

This kind of knee jerk analysis, typical of American "reasoning" abilities, is what allows people to seriously compose sentences that contain Al Gore, Rush Limbaugh, and the Nobel Peace Prize. (hint: One those things is not like the others)

Congratulations to Mr. Gore. He deserves it. I wonder what Rush will have to say about it? Not really.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:01 AM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


What a trifecta - 1st - popular vote for POTUS 2000, then an Academy Award, now the Nobel.

He also won an Emmy Award for Current TV.
posted by Poolio at 5:02 AM on October 12, 2007


autodidact: "Do people forget that this planet is pretty much always approaching or receding from an ice age?"

Finally, a right-winger that isn't afraid of change.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 5:03 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Giuliani will win the general election

Giuliani is going nowhere. First of all, the fundies aren't going to vote for him, according to their recent conferences and press releases. He can win the primary without them (if they just stay away, rather than vote for another GOP candidate) but not the general.

But even assuming they decide to hold their noses and vote for the pro-choice, pro-equal-rights candidate, he still won't win for two simple reasons:

1) "9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!" isn't the platform it once was.

2) He's bald.

That said, Hillary winning the general would only be marginally better than Giuliani. A pro-business hawk whose idea of health care reform is to force everyone to participate in the free market disaster already in progress == wheeeeee.
posted by DU at 5:04 AM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


He also won an Emmy Award for Current TV.

He's also in the running for World's Best Grampa.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 5:06 AM on October 12, 2007 [4 favorites]


Do people forget that this planet is pretty much always approaching or receding from an ice age?

Reaction from thousands of climate scientists world-wide: OOOOOoooooooh, riiiiight! We'd totally forgotten about ice ages! Damn. Thanks, autodidact!
posted by DU at 5:15 AM on October 12, 2007 [5 favorites]


kittens had it, and however wrong I might be I still fucking blame him. I blame him I blame him I blame him. I trusted him and -sniff tear tear sniff - he broke my America-lovin' heart! Just browke it all up ta pieces that no good ... ugh! [deep breath, pats hair (what's left)]

I wish him the best of luck on his new venture. This 'environment' thing. Seems promising.
posted by From Bklyn at 5:15 AM on October 12, 2007


Who came in second place? Hugo Chavez?
posted by Durwood at 5:17 AM on October 12, 2007


From Bklyn and everyone else who's blamin' on Al,

the reason Gore didn't win is not that he didn't pitch a hissy fit and not that the Nine Old Men screwed him, it's that Cocksman Clinton took it upon himself to get fellated repeatedly by a chatty young woman.

No Monicagate, no scandal, no "family values" campaign, no GWB in the White House.
posted by the sobsister at 5:32 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


I wonder how many miles he's going to fly going to show off the award. Theres a Noble Prize for Narration?
posted by Mach5 at 5:47 AM on October 12, 2007


it's that Cocksman Clinton took it upon himself to get fellated repeatedly by a chatty young woman.

He's responsible for 9/11 too, you know.
posted by Cyrano at 5:54 AM on October 12, 2007


Poolio, when names are submitted regardless of who submits them, those names by definition are nominations.

Only if your definition of "nomination" is more or less useless.

By your logic, my 17 year old niece can be said to have been nominated for President in 2008, because some of her school friends have said "I nominate Carissa!"

If the organization taking nominations doesn't recognize someone's "nomination" as a nomination, then why would we want to consider it a nomination?

I do agree that "Nobel Prize Nominee" is a more or less useless designation, but not because "anybody can be nominated." Sure, anybody can be nominated. (Not just anybody can nominate, though.) What's important is that it's 50 goddamn years before anybody knows, officially, who actually was. So if anyone tells you they were nominated, there's no official way to verify that until it's become irrelevant.
posted by lodurr at 5:54 AM on October 12, 2007 [3 favorites]


However many times Gore says he's not running, a substantial portion of people on the right won't believe it until after election day. Even then, they'll just say "he realized in October that he'd waited too long."

Cases in point: My eldest brother (a MechE/NukeE* who works with fuel cells) and my father (a retired NukeE) both think that the whole "global warming thing" is a lateral-think campaign for President. My brother never tires of saying "Inconvenient Truth is a campaign film."

People on that side hate Gore almost as much as they hate Hilary. Almost.

--
*please, somebody say it, don't make me followup my own setups...

posted by lodurr at 6:02 AM on October 12, 2007


"autodidact" is a very apt handle, methinks. It's just possible that he's running some kind of deeply conceptual project to illustrate the perils of autodidacticism. I wonder what his feelings on Wikipedia are...
posted by lodurr at 6:07 AM on October 12, 2007


My eldest brother (a MechE/NukeE* who works with fuel cells) and my father (a retired NukeE) both think that the whole "global warming thing" is a lateral-think campaign for President. My brother never tires of saying "Inconvenient Truth is a campaign film."

I think that gets to the crux of it. Most, if not all, of the opposition I've read is political in nature, not scientific. Naysayers dislike the politics, not the science.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:07 AM on October 12, 2007


Mach5: "I wonder how many miles he's going to fly going to show off the award."

Oh, please. If that's all you have left to argue, then just give up.
posted by octothorpe at 6:08 AM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


Who came in second place? Hugo Chavez?

You needed three hours to come up with that?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:08 AM on October 12, 2007 [3 favorites]


autodidact isn't worried. It lives inland.
posted by spitbull at 6:11 AM on October 12, 2007


I don't spend a lot of time in forums where global warming is discussed, but I gather there's a lot of dissension in the ranks over prevention versus abatement versus adaptation. Which are all political discussions, in a sense, but they're also personality driven: Do we (idealistically and optimistically) try to prevent it, believing we still can? Do we assume we have to try to reverse it, and look for means to do that? (Which could make things even worse.) Or do we hunker down and try to ride it out?

My nightmare scenario is that the decisions will end up being driven by a cadre of people who believe they can ride it out with the assistance of money, power, and technology. Who aren't in the same boat iwth the rest of us, and don't have any real incentive to do anything that's good for the long-term survivability of anyone but them and theirs. Such people tend not to be able to see the problem with assuming the fate of them and theirs is intricately bound up with the fate of folks they don't give a crap about.
posted by lodurr at 6:13 AM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


FYI- to settle the nomination thing, you guys are sort of both right. Yes, technically anyone can be nominated for a Nobel, but the only official nominees are the ones selected by the Nobel committee and not revealed until 50 years following the Prizes' awarding.

A close comparison is the Pulitzer. There are thousands of people "nominated" for the Pulitzer- you are a nominee as long as an entry form and fee is submitted with your name and work on it. However, for most categories there are only 3-4 "finalists" which are the final nominees the Committee selects from.

Just like claiming you are a "Pulitzer Prize nominee," claiming you are a "Nobel Prize nominee" is merely an open indicatorof your actual ignorance toward the award, as anyone with genuine intellect toward the process would know that if they were actually a nominee before the Committee they wouldn't actually know.

The right-wingers claiming they "nominated" Rush Limbaugh for the award have about as much credibility- and intelligence- and the people who whine about Jesus not winning Time's Person of the Year every December.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:13 AM on October 12, 2007


Who came in second place? Hugo Chavez?

Hur, hur! Good one, d00d!
posted by the sobsister at 6:16 AM on October 12, 2007


... Jesus not winning Time's Person of the Year every December.

Well, I think that's a goddamn crime.

And what the hell -- can't his dad pull some Him-damned strings?
posted by lodurr at 6:16 AM on October 12, 2007


He also won an Emmy Award for Current TV.

Can't wait to see what he gets the Tony for!
posted by Sparx at 6:25 AM on October 12, 2007 [6 favorites]


lodurr wrote "My nightmare scenario is that the decisions will end up being driven by a cadre of people who believe they can ride it out with the assistance of money, power, and technology."

In my more tinfoil hattish times I wonder if that might be the reason why the right, as a whole, is so invested in denying the problem: that they *want* to see a huge disaster occur becuase it'll give 'em an opportunity to take "emergency measures" and turn them into perminant policy.

The use of emergency management as a tool for ramrodding through policies that might otherwise be rejected has historic prescident.

In my less tinfoil hattish periods I think its just a combination of greed, willful ignorance, and "I've got mine"-ism.
posted by sotonohito at 6:31 AM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


But you could make similar arguments about any work which seems to do any kind of good. Accepting this argument turns the Peace prize into a prize for anything good. I think this removes the point of the award and frustrates Nobel's intention.

Frustrated intentions or not, that's what the Prize has become. The rest is quibbling over the definition of "good"--I think there are still a lot of people that would rather live with their heads in the ground.

Do people forget that this planet is pretty much always approaching or receding from an ice age?

Why, there's an owner of one of them fiiiine holes-o-dirt now!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:33 AM on October 12, 2007


My brother never tires of saying "Inconvenient Truth is a campaign film."

People on that side hate Gore almost as much as they hate Hilary. Almost.


Look, seriously, I'm not in the hate-Gore-automatically camp, but if you've read that book... they're right.

In a book ostensibly about global warming, there are many, many pictures of Al Gore, and entire chapters devoted to his sister and father -- which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.

He even color-codes the pages; stuff about him and his family is on a yellow background. There are a lot of yellow pages in that book. The stuff about climate change is huge color pictures with simple words in large print; the stuff about him is small print with many, many words. While the page count on Al Gore is much smaller than the page count about climate change, I'd guess the actual WORD counts are probably more like 50/50.

It is obviously and clearly a campaign tool. I don't see how you could read the book and draw any other conclusion.
posted by Malor at 6:38 AM on October 12, 2007


(or, alternately, a man that's so narcissistic that he just can't leave himself out of a book about the environment, but that seems... unlikely.)
posted by Malor at 6:40 AM on October 12, 2007


It is obviously and clearly a campaign tool.

I sure hope you are right.
posted by DU at 6:47 AM on October 12, 2007 [4 favorites]


In 2057, please remind me to log on to MetaFilter so we may continue the debate over the definition of "nomination." I will be 93 years old.

No so fast there, buddy. I still have to be fitted for my retinal chip implants so I can browse the web as I sleep. Those aren't due out until 2059.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:47 AM on October 12, 2007


Draft Gore ad from yesterday's New York Times (pdf).

Doesn't he just make the actual (s)elected moron in the oval office look like an utter fool? Are Americans not even slightly remorseful that this man has not been our leader for the last 8 years, instead of the boy idiot?

You can defy reality, common sense, and the majority of the world's people's opinions for only so long. How long? I don't know. But America has so much egg on its face that we look like an omelette.
posted by spitbull at 6:51 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]



So lets spend a few more minutes here in the bathroom, America. You finish crying then we'll clean you up and send you back out to the party. I hear that nice Obama fellow's been asking about you.


Do me a fave, huh? Go out and tell Al that I have three busty hookers and some coke here in the bathroom. Tell him to bring Barrack. Partaaaaaay!!!


Gore/Obama 2008

You read it here first.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:52 AM on October 12, 2007 [3 favorites]


Way to go, Al!!!!

Oh, how I wish he would run. I just KNOW he'd win.

Again.
posted by perilous at 7:13 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


I've seen "An Inconvenient Truth." Global warming is still BS. Do people forget that this planet is pretty much always approaching or receding from an ice age?
posted by autodidact at 7:48 AM on October 12


Thanks for the reminder. Did you forget that the Sun is dying? It's true. Every passing moment it burns up more of its priceless hydrogen. In 5 billion years, KABOOM, the sun will explode.

Did you also forget that in about ten million years, our solar system will reach the peak of its periodic oscillation above and below the galactic plane, bathing our planet in deadly gamma and X-rays from the galactic core? It's true. This happens ever 62 million years, and it coincides with mass extinctions.

Did you also forget that statistically speaking it is becoming increasingly likely that sometime in the next few million years our planet will be hit by an asteroid on the scale of the one that killed off the dinosaurs? It's true. Only recently have professional scienticians and egghead expertologists become aware of how many near misses we've had.

Did you forget that your comment is totally and utterly nonsensical? It's true. It would have been more scientifically accurate if you wrote "MAGIC TACO PIE EATS EARTH PENGUIN FLORP GLAP URP!"
posted by Pastabagel at 7:15 AM on October 12, 2007 [22 favorites]


the causes and consequences of the warming are under debate.

Not really. We know the cause (greenhouse gases) and the consequences (warming planet). There is not much debate about this, except in the sense people debate if the earth is flat, or if Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or evolution vs creationism. New Scientist magazine had an article this week saying we need climate septics because they help ask the hard questions and drive the science forward - but lately the skeptics have been so incompetent and weak that there is concern there is not enough real skepticism. I attribute this to the fact the science is so strong and the evidence so irrefutable that climate skepticism has basically died and now moved into the realm of tin-foil hat, the only place it has currency.
posted by stbalbach at 7:16 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Can't wait to see what he gets the Tony for!

Is it time for another revival of Oklahoma! already?

Chicks and ducks and geese better scurry
When I take you out in my Prius
When I take you out in my Prius with the sol..ar panel!

The wheels are recycled, the upholstery too,
The dashboard's #2 plastic,
With inflatable pontoons you can blow right up,
In case there's a change in the sea level....

posted by dw at 7:23 AM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


My brother never tires of saying "Inconvenient Truth is a campaign film."

To be honest, he's right. I loved AIT, but after watching it the first thing I said- perhaps optimistically- was that it was edited and shot with the clear intention of framing Gore as a viable presidential candidate.

At the time the film was released, I have no doubt Gore was leaning heavily toward running. His plans shifted for two main reasons:

1. Gore realized that he was actually making significant progress on the issue he is truly passionate about- there is far more discussion these last two years about climate change and carbon offsets and legitimate steps toward fixing these problems because of his work... becoming a political candidate makes his cause an issue that forces even other Democrats to fight with him on it.

2. Gore, like most of us, had no idea how effective the Hillary Clinton campaign was going to be. Partially because of his own animosity toward Clinton, I doubt he perceived that she would actually raise so much money and rise in popularity that quickly.

Ironically, Gore's Nobel and Hillary's Presidency share a very common element: the problem with Bush for the GOP is he doesn't care how everyone actively hates him. Sure, he's imagining some future legacy, but right now, to most of the country and even more of the world, he's the devil. We are living right now in a generation where political decisions like the Nobel Prize and the Presidential race are going to be judged based heavily on spite.

Gore deserves his award- but let's be honest that a huge joy in this as well is how batshit rabid this is going to make the right-wing (and shared with the UN, no less!) Hillary Clinton, should she become President, is going to be based partially on the same feeling.

This is what happens when you live on a planet with six billion people and piss of about 90% of them.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:25 AM on October 12, 2007


the Peace Prize is more a "We Like This Liberal" award than actually for promoting peace.

And what's wrong with that? There is no right-of-center political party in Europe or the rest of the industrialized world that is as supportive of climatological disaster and perpetual war as the Republican Party in the United States. If awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter and Al Gore is the most effective method that "world opinion" can use to scold the George W. Bush juggernaut in Washington, then I'm all for it.
posted by jonp72 at 7:27 AM on October 12, 2007


He might have won the 2000 presidential election and the Nobel Peace Prize, but Gore never won an Academy Award. Davis Guggenheim won an Academy Award for a film about Al Gore. (I know the poster didn't say he did, but a few people have in the comments.)
posted by goatdog at 7:28 AM on October 12, 2007


Devils Rancher,

The press is way beyond making fun on Hillary's hairstyle. This year, it's her laugh.
posted by lukemeister at 7:31 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


"... the people who whine about Jesus not winning Time's Person of the Year every December."

Wait.. that actually happens?
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 7:36 AM on October 12, 2007


It must be even worse seeing that your ex is an Oscar-winning Nobel laureate now.

Gore does not have an Oscar. The Academy Award for Documentary Feature goes to the film's director; for An Inconvenient Truth, this was Davis Guggenheim.

Hillary will win the nomination and Giuliani will win the general election.

There would be one benefit to Giuliani winning: it would completely emasculate the Religious Right politically. If Giuliani is nominated and loses, the RR will claim responsibility and hold that over the head of the Republican Party for the next 20 years, at least. If he wins, the RR is shown to be impotent.

Do people forget that this planet is pretty much always approaching or receding from an ice age?

If you're going to attack the current consensus on climate change, at least do it in a way that doesn't defy basic logic. By your reasoning, no one dies from gunshot wounds, since people were dying long before there were guns.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:37 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


I doubt he perceived that she would actually raise so much money and rise in popularity that quickly.

It doesn't matter how popular Clinton is. What matters is how popular she'd remain if Gore were in the race. I'd be very surprised if Gore couldn't take her down, but then I'm already very surprised that a slightly-right-of-center candidate is the Democrats' (apparent) choice (so far) after so many years and examples of rightwing malcompetence.
posted by DU at 7:38 AM on October 12, 2007


If Giuliani is nominated and loses, the RR will claim responsibility and hold that over the head of the Republican Party for the next 20 years...

Oh man, I hadn't even thought of that. That is going to rule so much. So very much.
posted by DU at 7:40 AM on October 12, 2007


No Monicagate, no scandal, no "family values" campaign, no GWB in the White House.

Oh good, at least we're done blaming Nader.
posted by mediareport at 7:46 AM on October 12, 2007 [4 favorites]


awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter and Al Gore

Have two politicians from the same party ever won the Nobel Peace Prize in separate years before? And I'm not talking people fighting for democracy or independence, but politicians from established parties in settled democracies.
posted by Kattullus at 7:47 AM on October 12, 2007


I was hoping he got the prize for inventing the internet. Oh well.

Congratulations to Big Al and I hope his friends talk him into *jumping* into the president race.
posted by bukvich at 7:54 AM on October 12, 2007


No Monicagate, no scandal, no "family values" campaign, no GWB in the White House.

If it hadn't been Monica, the right-wing noise machine would have just used something else to smear Clinton.
posted by octothorpe at 7:55 AM on October 12, 2007 [3 favorites]


I agree with lodurr's brother (to a point). He's going to run for president and he's going to win. If he does, I will vote for a Democrat for president for the first time since 1992. C'mon Al. Don't wait too long!

I couldn't care less about meaningless honorifics.
posted by mrgrimm at 7:56 AM on October 12, 2007


Unfortunately Gore can't run without invalidating all his environmental work. Any political move on his part will allow his critics to immediately raise charges of hypocrisy and dismiss his environmental work as political propaganda. You can see from the thread that this is already happening while all he's done nothing but insist that he's not going to run.

If awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter and Al Gore is the most effective method that "world opinion" can use to scold the George W. Bush juggernaut in Washington, then I'm all for it.

It's pretty clear this point that the GOP cannot and will not restrain itself. A quick look at the party's presidential candidates makes it all too clear what all of the party elite must know: any attempt to change course, even the slightest doubt, will bring the whole house crashing down. They're going all in and will risk it all. In the face of such desperate disregard and mania there's not much one can do; appeals to consciousness, rational persuasion, and offers of compromise will hold no appeal to an individual who's got everything to lose and everything to gain. The only tactic that might possibly work is universal condemnation and the resulting solitary confinement. If America's fanatical right wing were exiled from the polis there's a tiny possibility that the extraordinary pain of alienation and isolation would be enough to make them moderate themselves in the hope of again being welcomed among polite society and reasonable men.

So there's no doubt that this decision was political but it's not just a "message" to Bush it's also an important show of solidarity. The best thing Gore could do with this opportunity wouldn't be to enter the necessarily equalizing campaign space but to maintain his position of moral superiority and use it to continue appealing to 'Good Americans' while criticize and condemning 'Bad Americans'. It's pretty clear that people will listen when he speaks up and the calling people to action and rigorous criticizing of the status quo is what the country really needs, much more than any President/Messiah. The only question is if Al really has the chops to do what needs to be done.
posted by nixerman at 8:00 AM on October 12, 2007 [4 favorites]


Have two politicians from the same party ever won the Nobel Peace Prize in separate years before?

Teddy Roosevelt (1906) & Henry Kissinger (1973)

Woodrow Wilson (1919) & Jimmy Carter (2002)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:00 AM on October 12, 2007


All I'm saying is temperatures are never going to be stable for very long, one way or the other. We are currently overdue for the next mini-ice-age
posted by autodidact at 8:01 AM on October 12, 2007


Yaargh! I meant separate, but close years. I guess changing from coffee to tea in the morning is taking its toll.
posted by Kattullus at 8:05 AM on October 12, 2007


My nightmare scenario is that the decisions will end up being driven by a cadre of people who believe they can ride it out with the assistance of money, power, and technology.

Nightmare scenario? Isn't that the approach of the moderate left? We are reassured that from America's money/power/technology there will emerge a solution to our energy problems, but no one seems able to articulate a clear and compelling call for necessary sacrifice. America is waiting for a leader to save us, but none of our leaders have the courage to tell us that it's time we save ourselves.
posted by eddydamascene at 8:08 AM on October 12, 2007


All I'm saying is temperatures are never going to be stable for very long, one way or the other.

My bank balance is never stable for very long, one way or the other. Does that mean I shoulder no responsibility at all for trying to maintain it? That I should go out and spend my money immediately on whatever I feel like, because there's no point in trying to maintain it?

"There are natural, cyclical variations in the climate" and "human activity is significantly increasing average global temperature" are not mutually exclusive statements, as you seem to believe.

We are currently overdue for the next mini-ice-age

No, we're not. The last one only ended about 150 years ago, and they typically come around every 1500 years.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:12 AM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


All I'm saying is temperatures are never going to be stable for very long, one way or the other. We are currently overdue for the next mini-ice-age.

Climate scientists are hoping you'll publish a peer-reviewed paper on your ideas, which are completely new to them.
posted by DU at 8:12 AM on October 12, 2007 [9 favorites]


We are currently overdue for the next mini-ice-age

...and yet we are getting warmer! Bummer, no?

autodidact, have you autodidacted the term "oxymoron"? Or just "moron"?
posted by carmina at 8:13 AM on October 12, 2007


Or a toe-tapping Pirates of Penzance</i<


I am the very model of an educated liberal,
I've inconvenient knowledge climatic and untrivial,
I know the Queen of England, and I helped create the Internet
When World Wide Web was Darpanet, it hadn't been invented yet;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters quite political,
I understand the masses, both the people and the critical,
About my friends at SNL I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
With many cheerful facts about how Jimmy Kimmel hits the booze.

I'm very good at PowerPoint and fahrenheit and centigrade;
I know the scientific names of lemons and of lemonade:
And when it comes to losing out on matters presidential
I am the very model of an educated liberal.

posted by Sparx at 8:16 AM on October 12, 2007 [26 favorites]


Damn - I spilled my italics again
posted by Sparx at 8:19 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


And when it comes to losing out on matters presidential

You can't lose what was stolen by cheaters.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:19 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Well, get all worked up about it if you must...
posted by autodidact at 8:21 AM on October 12, 2007


We must.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 8:26 AM on October 12, 2007


Well, get all worked up about it if you must...

If working ourselves into a lather is the only way to keep the planet warm enough to fight the onset of the next Ice Age (mini or maxi), then it is what we must do.
posted by psmealey at 8:29 AM on October 12, 2007


You can't lose what was stolen by cheaters

Well, yeah. But he also only ever made it to VP, so that's another kind of loss. The line has many layers. Like a layer cake. Made out of onions.
posted by Sparx at 8:29 AM on October 12, 2007


The Rude Pundit weighs in.
posted by breaks the guidelines? at 8:30 AM on October 12, 2007


A nobel prize embiggens even the most Inconvenient Truth.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:35 AM on October 12, 2007 [4 favorites]


Any political move on his part will allow his critics to immediately raise charges of hypocrisy and dismiss his environmental work as political propaganda.

I don't think he could run on an environmental platform and win anyway, so I think that's moot. As it happens, environmentalists would likely vote for him anyway, even if it flip-flopped on it. As it is, since when did charges of hypocrisy EVER prevent a politician from winning an election.

I think Al could actually win if he ran, but he won't. I don't think he needs the aggravation.

The field is pretty much set, Giuliani will eventually implode, Hillary will continue to gather momentum (and Big Corporate Money), and we'll see Romney v. Clinton in the final, where the right wing will turn out in such record numbers to vote against Hillary, and we'll be stuck with Mitt. Pains me to say it, but it's hard for me to see it turn out any other way.
posted by psmealey at 8:41 AM on October 12, 2007


Let's stop on an annoying insect of a claim just for a moment. The film An Inconvenient Truth contains material about Gore and his family history. It's not because it's a campaign tool; I believe him when he says he's done running. (It'd be nice if he was lying, but whatever.) It's also not because Al Gore is the same kind of raging narcissist that George W. Bush is.

There's Gore stuff in An Inconvenient Truth because the director insisted on putting it there. Pay attention to it, and it tells a story: the Gore family grew tobacco. The Gore family mad lots and lots and lots of cash off of tobacco. And when it came out that using tobacco is one of the most severely unhealthy things you can do on a regular basis, the Gores stopped growing tobacco. Tobacco's status as a carcinogen was, to quote the title, an inconvenient truth- a truth that meant that they should do something that would seriously inconvenience them.

The whole point is that when the proof came out that tobacco fucks up your health, the Gores stopped growing tobacco. The parallel to global warming is obvious: global warming is a powerfully inconvenient truth, one we may have to make large sacrifices and change our way of life in response to. Gore and Guggenheim argued about putting in the biographical bits- Gore wanted the film to just be him giving his speech. Guggenheim argued that adding in the biographical bits would provide a concrete example of the sort of thing that Gore was talking about. In the end it sounds like Gore was right all along- not because it would have made for a better movie, but because not including the biographical bits would have provided one less thing for the simple, idiotic, and mendacious to grasp for as criticism.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:43 AM on October 12, 2007 [31 favorites]


the RR will claim responsibility and hold that over the head of the Republican Party for the next 20 years

Maybe someday the Religious Right will realize the Republicans have been playing them for suckers and will never give them everything they want because the issues they support make handy sticks to beat Democrats up with. Under Bush they had a Republican president (with a sky-high approval rating during part of his first term), a Republican Congress, and a Republican-leaning Supreme Court. What else do they need? If they were going to make abortion or gay marriage illegal, they would have done it already.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:59 AM on October 12, 2007


I don't think they'll feel too discouraged after these past 6 years, kirkaracha. While the old conservative model (under Reagan, specifically) was to pay lip service to the RR and not actually do anything for them, Bush has been much different. He has given them much more than they've ever gotten in the past. He has given them Roberts, Alito, countless other conservative judicial appointments, not to mention all the clowns in the Administration who came out of Oral Roberts, Liberty and Bob Jones Universities.
posted by psmealey at 9:08 AM on October 12, 2007


Sparx, you are hereby awarded the Nobel Prize for Awesome.
posted by Optamystic at 9:08 AM on October 12, 2007


Do people forget that this planet is pretty much always approaching or receding from an ice age?

The problem is not that the planet is heating up on one of it's heat/cool cycles, it's that it's heating up too fast for the natural systems to re-regulate themselves and adapt. For instance, arboreal forests and their associated soil organisms are now experiencing summers that are nearly a month longer than normal- which means about thirty percent longer. The heterotrophic organisms have that much longer to reproduce and break down carbon. That doesn't seem all that bad, but they are starting to break down carbon that's been in the soil for thousands of years, and are now releasing that into the atmosphere. These forests are unused to the increased carbon, and respond with growth spurts that weaken the trees and provide even more carbon detritus in the form of more leaves and fallen branches, providing more food for soil microorganisms that then respire even more carbon. If this change was happening slowly, these forests would have a chance to gradually acclimate to the increased carbon with regulated growth, but the unusual growth spurts in trees unaccustomed to these changes means an overall net increase in carbon in the atmosphere.
posted by oneirodynia at 9:10 AM on October 12, 2007 [3 favorites]


Breaking News:
On hearing the news of Gore's honor 911 wingnuts heads asplode sending vast clouds of hot air and methane into the atmosphere causing polar ice caps to rapidly melt. New York, Hollywood and Stockholm expected to be submerged in the rising tides by nightfall.
posted by ericb at 9:22 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


In the end it sounds like Gore was right all along- not because it would have made for a better movie, but because not including the biographical bits would have provided one less thing for the simple, idiotic, and mendacious to grasp for as criticism.

Again, I didn't see the movie, mostly because I was offended by the book -- but the book, at least, is intended as a campaign tool. Even if you buy the 'Gore was a helpless victim of his director' argument, I'm sure he wasn't a helpless victim of his editor as well.

Had the book not been so obviously slanted at aiming him for another Presidential bid, I might buy your argument, but given the additional evidence, it doesn't hold water.

I felt the book was tremendously weakened by its obvious political purpose. If he'd gone a little less for crayon-style evidence, using the words and pages he spent on himself to explain the science more thoroughly, it would have served its claimed purpose far better.
posted by Malor at 9:25 AM on October 12, 2007


Pope Guilty: fascinating. I had never heard that before but it makes total sense.
posted by The Bellman at 9:26 AM on October 12, 2007


Look, I like Gore and I'm happy for his win and all, but please let go of the "he really won in 2000" stuff, already. I wish he had won, but he didn't. The SCOTUS decision was sketchy at best, but even if it had ruled the other way, the recount that was being legally requested would have gone for Bush.
posted by rocket88 at 9:26 AM on October 12, 2007


Seriously, ericb. I had a look at National Review this morning and they were shitting themselves...I can only imagine what it's like over at LGF.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:26 AM on October 12, 2007


I wonder why Rush Limbaugh didn't win.
posted by telstar at 9:28 AM on October 12, 2007


not to mention all the clowns in the Administration who came out of Oral Roberts, Liberty and Bob Jones Universities.

There are people who went to ORU and BJU in this administration, and in any greater number than any other administration of the last 40 years? That's news to me.

Liberty and Regent have been documented, of course. But ORU? They haven't had a law school since the "God Will Call Me Home" episode hobbled their giving and lost them their accreditation. They barely have a grad school now.
posted by dw at 9:29 AM on October 12, 2007


when names are submitted regardless of who submits them, those names by definition are nominations

Congrats to Mefi's own poolio and fandango_matt! I just sent nominations on your behalf to the Nobel Prize Committee for each of you. Our very own MeFi Nobel Nominees!
posted by ericb at 9:30 AM on October 12, 2007


I can only imagine what it's like over at LGF.

Shh... don't disturb them. ConEd is using their white-hot hatred to power 1,300,000 homes in metro NYC today.

Clean, efficient political hate, helping us break our dependence on foreign oil.
posted by dw at 9:31 AM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


I can only imagine what it's like over at LGF.

The entire conservative internet is hilarious right now. Imagine the creationism vs evolution debate, but with without the assistance (to them) of having idiotic media sources putting their "religious issues" reporter on the case. (Seriously--why does NPR put Barbara Bradley-Haggerty on the evolution stories? They are SCIENCE STORIES, you dumbassii!)
posted by DU at 9:32 AM on October 12, 2007


All I'm saying is temperatures are never going to be stable for very long, one way or the other. We are currently overdue for the next mini-ice-age

Yup. But you only have to wait until July 2009.
posted by dw at 9:33 AM on October 12, 2007


I still have to be fitted for my retinal chip implants so I can browse the web as I sleep. Those aren't due out until 2059

Spring for the extra $250k to get them waterproofed, believe me it's worth it, and see if they'll throw in a free suctioning for your gills - the algae's heaviest before labour day.
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:35 AM on October 12, 2007


Good. On the matter of Middle East warmongering a Gore-Lieberman administration would have been little different than Bush-Cheney - with the possible difference that Lieberman would not have allowed his dog to dither on Iran as much as Cheney has.

I'm sure we all remember Hussein's chilling declaration of war in 2003, when he appeared on stage with Osama bin Laden and declared "I did 9/11, and I'll do it again." As the news cameras panned across the nuclear missiles which were aimed at all the major American cities, and as wave after wave of fearsome Republican Guard troops unloaded from Iraqi battleships off the coasts of California and Maine, armed with nerve gas guns and dirty bombs, even George "Peace & Love" Bush was reluctantly forced to take action to defend his country.

Clearly, President Gore would have had no choice but to do the same.
posted by designbot at 9:39 AM on October 12, 2007 [10 favorites]


I was hoping he got the prize for inventing the internet. Oh well.

Snopes
Claim: Al Gore claimed that he invented the Internet.

Status: False."
Origin and debunking of the claim.

Salon: Did Gore invent the Internet?
"Actually, the vice president never claimed to have done so -- but he did help the Net along. Some people would rather forget that."
posted by ericb at 9:45 AM on October 12, 2007


Gore won't run because he figures Hillary is unstoppable, source tells CNN
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:53 AM on October 12, 2007


You're right, dw. I piled on those other fundamentalist Christian colleges for effect (without substantiation). My main point was that lightweight students from schools of questionable stature have consistently been rewarded with plum jobs (in gov't and at the CPA) in numbers previously unheard of. This is slightly less significant than awarding key judicial appointments to fellow traveler ideologues, but is worth mentioning.
posted by psmealey at 9:58 AM on October 12, 2007


this is awesome, if only for the joy of hearing the squealing of the usual suspects -- twist a pig's ear, etc
posted by matteo at 10:13 AM on October 12, 2007


I can only imagine what it's like over at LGF.

You probably don't have to imagine. It's likely more of the same predictable nonsense about the Nobel Foundation being "commie", and about Gore's big house or use of corporate jets.

Y'know... if you don't like the message, attack the messenger.
posted by psmealey at 10:17 AM on October 12, 2007


I don't spend a lot of time in forums where global warming is discussed, but I gather there's a lot of dissension in the ranks over prevention versus abatement versus adaptation.

The only divide that matters is between people who think sometimes you have to give up a little profit to achieve a greater good and... people who don't. If someone comes up with a way to slow down the production of greenhouse gases without slowing down the production of profits, the tightwads will shut up and the argument will end.

My brother never tires of saying "Inconvenient Truth is a campaign film."

He's right, because every public action of every politician in the world is a campaign event and everything they write is political propaganda, and Gore is still a politician no matter what his other current activities are, but that doesn't make An Inconvenient Truth wrong or Gore bad for trying to get himself (or his allies) into office so they can do something about it.
posted by pracowity at 10:36 AM on October 12, 2007


Malor, odds are Gore had little to do with the Truth book (aside from possibly approving it/slapping his name on it). I would bet he had a bit more to do with this book, The Assault on Reason.
posted by drezdn at 10:39 AM on October 12, 2007


He also won an Emmy Award for Current TV.

First, I lose to him for the Emmy, now I lose to him for the Nobel Peace Prize. It ain't right. I'm just sayin'.
posted by Asparagirl at 10:40 AM on October 12, 2007


Way to go, Al!
posted by nax at 10:42 AM on October 12, 2007


You're right, dw. I piled on those other fundamentalist Christian colleges for effect (without substantiation). My main point was that lightweight students from schools of questionable stature have consistently been rewarded with plum jobs (in gov't and at the CPA) in numbers previously unheard of.

And I'm just saying to pile on the right places -- Regent, Liberty, and Patrick Henry College -- because that doesn't make people like me be dismissive of your points. ORU and BJU have their own problems, but their influence in this government is indirect at best, and even their ability to influence politics in general of late is questionable. (I mean, Richard Roberts was trying to influence the Tulsa mayor's race -- and his candidate barely got 8000 votes and finished a distant third in the primary?)

Of course, if you do want to be nit-picky, ORU sold their law library to Regent after they shut their law school in 1986 -- and it was that library that allowed Pat Robertson to start the CBN School of Law, what we now call Regent University School of Law. So ORU is very indirectly responsible for Monica Goodling.
posted by dw at 10:56 AM on October 12, 2007


Malor: Again, I didn't see the movie, mostly because I was offended by the book -- but the book, at least, is intended as a campaign tool. Even if you buy the 'Gore was a helpless victim of his director' argument, I'm sure he wasn't a helpless victim of his editor as well.

I'm unclear on why you'd be willing to concede that the movie might have been edited against Gore's wishes, but the companion book wouldn't have been. Could you explain your rationale?
posted by lodurr at 10:56 AM on October 12, 2007


Patrick Henry College

... is certainly one of the more ironic college names in the US.
posted by lodurr at 10:57 AM on October 12, 2007


I can only imagine what it's like over at LGF.

I'll guess they're mostly irked that this inconvenient award story is distracting them from flaying that awful, awful 12 year old coma boy.
posted by maryh at 10:59 AM on October 12, 2007


He has given them much more than they've ever gotten in the past.

True, but I think this is all they're ever going to get. I hope, and sometimes believe, that the US swung to the conservative extreme during Bush's presidency (pushed along by the 9/11 attacks) and started swinging back between the 2004 and 2006 elections. And the clowns can be bounced out by the next administration, even for no reason at all if they use the current administration as precedent.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:02 AM on October 12, 2007


...started swinging back between the 2004 and 2006 elections.

The momentum is leftward, but we are still deeply in conservative territory.
posted by DU at 11:15 AM on October 12, 2007


The National Review weighs in.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:23 AM on October 12, 2007


Gore won't run because he figures Hillary is unstoppable, source tells CNN


here is the text from that link:


WASHINGTON (CNN) A source involved in Gore's past political runs told CNN that he definitely has the ambition to use the peace prize as a springboard to run for president.

But he will not run, because he won't take on the political machine assembled by Sen. Hillary Clinton, said the source. If the senator from New York had faltered at all, Gore would take a serious look at entering the race, the source said. But Gore has calculated that Clinton is unstoppable, according to the source- a high-ranking Clinton campaign staffer who has asked for anonymity in order to both hide the transparently self-serving nature of the provided quote and to allow me as a reporter to pretend I did some work rather than just forwarding a campaign press release. The source added that Hilary was quite possibly the most excellent person in the whole world and everyone should both love her and fear her at the same time. She is awesome! Awesome!
posted by srboisvert at 11:31 AM on October 12, 2007 [4 favorites]


I'll go out on a limb and say Bill Clinton is going to win this prize sometime in the next ten years.
posted by edgeways at 11:36 AM on October 12, 2007


Maybe Inhofe will nominate him for the Hugo?
posted by wfrgms at 11:40 AM on October 12, 2007


I would just like to note for posterity that one of my coworkers, during coffeebreak, said: "How can they give Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize, he can't even spell the word potato!"
posted by Kattullus at 11:42 AM on October 12, 2007 [4 favorites]


Malor, odds are Gore had little to do with the Truth book (aside from possibly approving it/slapping his name on it).

To be fair, that doesn't excuse Ron Paul, and it shouldn't excuse Al Gore.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:45 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


America: "Peace is for pussies".
posted by spock at 11:47 AM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


I would just like to note for posterity that one of my coworkers, during coffeebreak, said: "How can they give Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize, he can't even spell the word potato!"

That co-worker, it goes without saying, a'int the sharpest pencil in the desk drawer.
posted by ericb at 11:59 AM on October 12, 2007


Not the starchiest potatoe in the patch.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:01 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


The National Review weighs in.

Damn, you really gotta marvel at the genius of those Corner boys. You think of all the deranged, misinformed, meanspirited, self-serving, plain-ole-horseshit ways someone might smear a Nobel laureate, and you think you've thought of them all. And then you click the link . . . and - BAM! - they equate becoming a global leader in the fight against climate change with sharing Osama Bin Laden's overall worldview. With a citation.

Once, in Taos, New Mexico, I stomped on a bulbous brown recluse spider that'd crawled out of the woodpile of my rental cottage, and this great long parasite that looked like an intenstinal tract in miniature slowly unfurled itself from the gut splat of the spider and started shuddering blindly across the floor.

I remember thinking: Goddamn, now that's one resourceful parasite, living off the innards of a deadly poisonous spider in a high altitude desert. I was disgusted - really truly freaked - at some deep inner-core spiritual level. But I was also in awe of the sheer tenacity, you know?

The Corner's quite a bit like that.
posted by gompa at 12:12 PM on October 12, 2007 [15 favorites]


Ain't the brightest bulb in the scoreboard. Which might be good, especially if it's due to lower wattage,which saves on electricity - actually making the comment an unintended homage to Gore.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 12:13 PM on October 12, 2007


Once, in Taos, New Mexico, I stomped on a bulbous brown recluse spider that'd crawled out of the woodpile of my rental cottage, and this great long parasite that looked like an intenstinal tract in miniature slowly unfurled itself from the gut splat of the spider and started shuddering blindly across the floor.

I remember thinking: Goddamn, now that's one resourceful parasite, living off the innards of a deadly poisonous spider in a high altitude desert. I was disgusted - really truly freaked - at some deep inner-core spiritual level. But I was also in awe of the sheer tenacity, you know?


You killed it, right?

Right?

please say yes please say yes please say yes
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:14 PM on October 12, 2007


Al Gore ate my potato. He is a villain.
posted by zerobyproxy at 12:16 PM on October 12, 2007


I wish I could unread that comment.
posted by Big_B at 12:21 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Fox News And Right-Wing Bloggers Attack Gore’s Nobel Prize.
posted by ericb at 12:22 PM on October 12, 2007


“Once, in Taos, New Mexico…”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, was The Purification!

/derail

posted by breaks the guidelines? at 12:22 PM on October 12, 2007


Personally, I rather doubt the book was ghostwritten; Gore is highly literate and perfectly capable of writing it himself.

Saying that he was 'ghost-filmed' is an extreme stretch, as he's going to have veto power over his own project. But even if you grant that he doesn't have the skill set to make a film, allowed it to be ghost-directed, and had scenes inserted 'against his will'..... that still doesn't apply to the book. It seems highly implausible to invent some hypothetical controlling entity over what he wrote. If there's one thing Gore doesn't need, it's a ghost writer.

It says Al Gore on the spine, and I know he can write books, so unless I see other evidence, I'll assume the political messages were his idea. But even if they weren't, he still let them be published with his name on it.

In the final analysis, you can't blame anyone else...he's Al Gore, and he approved those messages.
posted by Malor at 12:27 PM on October 12, 2007


from ericb's link:
Fox then displayed a chyron of the last few winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, causing another co-host Brian Kilmeade, to complain: “There’s the last five winners — see Mohamed El Baradei. What do they have in common? I don’t know about the 2006 winner, but I will say 2005 and 2007 both anti-Bush.”

Both anti-Bush. Like that's hard to do. A pro-Bush winner would have been much, much harder to find.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 12:44 PM on October 12, 2007


But even if you grant that he doesn't have the skill set to make a film, allowed it to be ghost-directed, and had scenes inserted 'against his will'

But I didn't say that. I said that he disagreed with director Davis Guggenheim about how to put the film together, and he eventually capitulated. Please don't say that I said what I didn't say.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:58 PM on October 12, 2007


Al Gore. What a self righteous prick.

Doesn't he know we are all gonna die anyway. The universe is gonna explode. Er. Implode. Or burns. or freeze or something. Well. Anyway. We're ll gonna die. Everything will end. None of this matters. I mean. Heh. Heh... his own mansion probably costs enough energy to keep a million Africans live. Am I right? What a jerk that guy is. He should just live by example and shut up. Like a good quiet Christian does. Am I right?

What a jerk that guy is. So let me conclude by saying MAGIC TACO PIE EATS EARTH PENGUIN FLORP GLAP URP!
posted by tkchrist at 1:10 PM on October 12, 2007


My brother never tires of saying "Inconvenient Truth is a campaign film."

To be honest, he's right. I loved AIT, but after watching it the first thing I said- perhaps optimistically- was that it was edited and shot with the clear intention of framing Gore as a viable presidential candidate.


Assuming it was, in fact, campaign oriented (and not just a way to humanize a man many called "stiff" and "Gore the Bore" not so long ago), what makes you think he wants to be president anymore?

He spent years in Washington and got pretty much nowhere with this cause, and I suspect as president he'd get about as far - DC is a quagmire in its own way... competing special interests, lobbyists, the requisite backroom deals... indeed, I'm honestly not sure how anything gets done.

Since he "left", he's become an international icon, won two major prizes, and is being touted as an elder statesman, in the same cadre as Mandela.

Why would he want to go back?

If he's campaigning for anything personal, it's in the UN - much broader scope. Or something completely new.

Or maybe he's just campaigning for Earth.
posted by Zinger at 1:21 PM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


That National Review bit is absolutely astounding. In my fantasy future world, fifty years from now there will be a museum devoted to these eight years in America. You know, like the Holocaust museum, so Americans never forget. That museum will be filled with artifacts like that passage.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 1:28 PM on October 12, 2007


in my fantasy future world, fifty years from now there will be a museum devoted to these eight years in America.

It'll look like the McCarthy era does to most reasonable people today. Problem is, that some of the people in question still consider McCarthy a hero.

And the cycle continues.
posted by psmealey at 1:31 PM on October 12, 2007


Irony dies the day Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace prize, there are no jokes left after that.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 1:44 PM on October 12, 2007


That museum will be filled with artifacts like that passage.

At this rate in fifty years that museum will be filled with sea water.
posted by tkchrist at 1:46 PM on October 12, 2007 [2 favorites]


I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE EARTH-EATING MAGIC TACO PIE.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:00 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Sour grapes for everyone!
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 2:02 PM on October 12, 2007


WHAT ABOUT THE PENGUIN FLORP GORP? DO NOT FORGET THAT.
posted by tkchrist at 2:03 PM on October 12, 2007


I wish Al would run, because he would be a good president. He's smart and ethical, and we need some smart, ethical people in Washington. The years of Bush/Cheney have damaged this country so badly. Hilary would be a pretty good president, Bill Richardson would be terrific, and I could live with any of the Dem. candidates.
posted by theora55 at 3:00 PM on October 12, 2007


I'm watching Fox News right now. Dear. Fucking. God. They have no shame. Goebbels would be proud.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:08 PM on October 12, 2007


Fox News: Gore’s Never ‘Actually Done Something For Peace;’ Give Petraeus The Prize.

Just a wee problem there, my boys:
"When Alfred Nobel established the Peace Prize in his will, he specifically outlined the criteria by which the recipient should be chosen:
The prize for peace was to be awarded to the person who 'shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding of peace congresses.'
Petraeus is the architect of Bush’s surge, a plan that has increased the number of forces in Iraq."
posted by ericb at 3:17 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Fox News: Gore’s Never ‘Actually Done Something For Peace...’

In an interview at Science Progress, Joe Romm [Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and author of ClimateProgress.org] explains how Gore’s environmental work is directly related to peace and security issues.
"I think it’s significant that it’s the Peace Prize. The Vice President and many others have said that climate change is a security issue because it will create millions of environmental refugees and will lead to water scarcity that can cause conflict. Conflicts like those in Darfur have environmental roots and need environmental solutions, along with political and economic solutions.

Gore is trying to prevent a humanitarian crisis; he is trying to prevent regional wars that will be driven by resource scarcity. This isn’t the first time that a major environmental issue has won the peace prize. Winning this Prize proves this isn’t an ordinary environmental issue. It is one of the most important issues of our time. It would be good if this award were part of a trend.

...It’s [also] important that the Nobel committee gave the award to a group of scientists. There have been other scientists, such as Linus Pauling, who received the peace prize, but this is rare. The IPCC has come under much unjustified criticism for supposedly being too political, whereas the rest of us know that they don’t oversell global warming. If anything, they underplay some of the impacts. A lot of IPCC scientists toil away in anonymity and if they say anything, they get attacked. Hopefully this will give them the courage to speak up."
posted by ericb at 3:22 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


DEMS ACCUSE NASCAR OF SPREADING DISEASE!!!

What else is the MSM keeping from me! I must check Redstate.

Oh, it looks like at least they have magnanimously contratulated Gore.
Considering supporting a group like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which Algore and Newsweek have sought to discredit because CEI fights back with facts.

In fact, here are the five groups you might want to support as a response to Algore's Nobel Prize:

Competitive Enterprise Institute
http://www.cei.org/

Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/

CATO Institute
http://www.cato.org/

Pacific Research Institute
http://www.pacificresearch.org/

The Reason Foundation
http://www.reason.org/index.shtml
Yah! We gotta do our part!
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:26 PM on October 12, 2007


Fox News: Gore’s Never ‘Actually Done Something For Peace;’ Give Petraeus The Prize.

Wow, just wow. They are actually advocating giving the Nobel Peace Prize to someone actively involved in escalating an ongoing war. What an outrageous farce. What can you say to someone who is literally willing to call war 'peace'?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 3:35 PM on October 12, 2007


What can you say to someone who is literally willing to call war 'peace'?

"1984 wasn't a light romantic comedy"
posted by psmealey at 3:36 PM on October 12, 2007 [1 favorite]


Michael Tomasky:
For all this, one doubts that Gore will ever be a candidate again. When the Democrats' front-runners were Clinton and Edwards, the case for a Gore candidacy was more convincing; there was room for one more heavyweight. But Obama seems to have taken up much of the space that Gore could have occupied. When Gore's name is tossed into polls, he still comes out third, usually well behind Clinton and Obama. ...

... Democratic voters tell pollsters they're quite satisfied with the current candidates (more so than Republican voters are). And even though Democrats say they admire his recent work on climate change and obviously wish he'd been president for the last seven years, whether he has appeal to independents is an open question. Gore surely knows this, and he undoubtedly has little taste for exposing himself one more time to a national press that so coarsely caricatured him in 2000 and which he has since criticized vigorously, inviting even worse treatment, perhaps, in 2008. Most likely he'll prefer to be seen as a "citizen," which would allow him to be something of a prophet, unconstrained by politics.
If Gore does decide to jump into the race, here's some campaign advice from tkchrist.
posted by russilwvong at 3:41 PM on October 12, 2007



I’m not a big Gore fan politically. I don’t know what he would have done as president. I see (Bill) Clinton talking about how marijuana should be legalized now that he’s not president anymore. Swell. Get out of office and your balls inflate. Gore though has been walking what he’s talked.
Carter was a lousy president, but he’s done a lot of good since he’s been out. I could say the same about Gore.
The country is likely better off with him out of politics and doing y’know actual work. (I’m reminded of Socrates saying he couldn’t get anything worthwhile done when he went into politics.)
Can’t say I liked most of his ideas when he was Veep. And he comes off like a stiff prick in most interaction.
I don’t get tho’ how some folks can’t disassociate disliking Gore and anything Gore has to say of merit.
Ok, Gore’s a dick. The global warming thing has to stop though and he’s right about it. Some folks want to give him a prize for it, why’s that political?
Oh, right, shill, right - but what’s anyone else’s stake in it?
Are that many men in the street multimillionares from the petroleum business that they have a dog in this?
The guy got an award, worst I can say is who cares?
But again, he’s not wrong about the environment. Hell, it’s been 35 years since the clean water act and all that and most states still don’t have their shit (literally) together.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:50 PM on October 12, 2007


It must be even worse seeing that your ex is an Oscar-winning Nobel laureate now.

Nope. Al was a mess and wasn't fit to be President. Now, maybe, but then, he wasn't ready. That's ok, we were young and stupid too, thought we knew what we wanted, thought we understood the world. Funny how 8 years can change a person, eh?

Still, while we're not exactly pining for Al we gotta admit he's looking good these days. Sometimes we wonder "What if", but then we remember that even though he won, he allowed himself to lose. Maybe he's changed, but really, why risk being hurt like that again?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:54 PM on October 12, 2007


Carter was a lousy president,

I disagree with that vehemently. He was sandbagged with the economic mess of Johnson and Nixon. He faced the perfect storm; the worst economy since the 1930s, due to prior monetary disorder, a broken military combined with the most belligerent world stage since WW2, due to prior foreign policy disorder, and on top of all that, he tried to actually lead, and get us to do things we didn't automatically want to do.

He was a great President in a very tough time. Everyone talks about Reagan's 'landslide victory', but it was actually a very tiny margin.... it was just consistent in almost all states, so it looked far more crushing than it actually was.

He has remained great in his later life. Most Presidents sort of fade away, but he certainly hasn't.

If he hadn't inherited such a mess, I think he would have had two terms, and be highly thought of.
posted by Malor at 4:00 PM on October 12, 2007 [9 favorites]


All day i've been reminded of a parody of the NY Post a long time ago--it read something like this:

MICHAEL JACKSON
and 8 million others
KILLED IN ATOMIC BLAST

SO:

AL GORE
and thousands of UN scientists
WIN NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
posted by amberglow at 4:04 PM on October 12, 2007


OMG, FAGS DRESSED AS NUNS STORM A CHURCH AND DEMAND COMMUNION! TONITE ON THE O'RLY FAKTOR!
Friday, October 12:
• Mocking the Catholic Church: Stunning video of gay men dressed in nun costumes. Why did the archbishop offer these anti-religious radicals communion after they interrupted mass? Bill uncovers the facts...
posted by [expletive deleted] at 4:17 PM on October 12, 2007


Conservative Nobel Prizes We'd Like to See--... the rugged individualists of the right are just hopping mad that they never win prizes designed to recognize contributions to, well, the rest of humanity.
...

posted by amberglow at 4:19 PM on October 12, 2007


America, this must be tough for you, I know. It's never easy when your ex cleans up and moves on before you do. It must be even worse seeing that your ex is an Oscar-winning Nobel laureate now.

Yes, clever metaphor, but what the F are you talking about?

Gore won in 2000. Bush's win was, basically, a usability error, not a mandate from the masses. Since then, somewhere between 49.5% to 80% of the US population has been really, really pissed at Bush (because he's a divider, not a uniter).

Don't tell me I still have to roll over each morning and see Bush's face lying next to me just because voting machines here suck and because there's just enough people who think, "Would I want to drink a beer with this person?" is a relevant method of choosing a president.

Oh, and here's what I also don't get. Nixon was loathed, whereas most people just dislike Bush. And sure, Nixon did some really crappy illegal things regarding the Democrats and coverups and what not. But this is also the guy who came up with the Clean Air and Water act -- and this time, it actually involved making Air and Water Cleaner! That would be unheard of from a conservative these days. It would have to be called the "Effectively making our industries roll over and die" bill and would mandate a 0.05% decrease in emissions over 100 years. I bring this up because I saw Carter mentioned above, and I remember a Doonesbury cartoon that talked about how the press was trying to make Carter look even less popular than Nixon. The idea was that people loathed Nixon because he was reprehensible, but simply weren't satisfied with Carter because he was not a very active President. It seems to me that Bush isn't nearly as hated as Nixon because on a personal level he's somewhat likeable and also because he's somewhat pathetic.

And at this point, I must needs stop writing before I explode politically. Oh my god, I must go to another planet in 2008.
posted by Deathalicious at 6:06 PM on October 12, 2007


The crazy thing is... even though Al Gore won the 2000 election and an Emmy, an Oscar and The Nobel Peace Prize... establishment Democrats still want Hillary Clinton to run for designated loser as the candidate best able to go down against whatever tool the GOP wants to run for president of 911.

At least that’s how the MSM frames it, but they've been wrong before. Hillary is Republican-Lite and Guliani is insane, and Americans are dumb as a sack of turds but the Nobel Peace Prize is dynamite.
posted by Huplescat at 6:48 PM on October 12, 2007


Ericb, War is Peace!

In other news: Freedom is Slavery, Magic Taco Pie, etc.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 7:24 PM on October 12, 2007


Al Gore has done more to discredit Global Warming than any one person.

Exaggerations and lack of critical review by the media and scientists already make any mature and thoughtful person assume at first that Global Warming is probably a non issue. However, by embracing Al Gore as their champion, global warming advocates have only increased doubt among mature and thoughtful people.

Gore’s past hypocrisy and exaggerations make any mature and thoughtful person assume he is lying. His hypocrisy and exaggerations about Global Warming in particular confirm that he is lying.

How betrayed did you feel when you found out that Al Gore has three houses, that one is over 10,000 square feet, that he doesn’t exercise the green energy option offered by his local power company, that he is addicted to private jets and limousines, and that even George Bush exercised the green energy option offered by his local power company?

To read the rest of this and many other articles on freedom, reality, and the future, go to www.LeeroyFDermit.com
posted by LeeroyFDermit at 8:27 PM on October 12, 2007


global warming advocates have only increased doubt among mature and thoughtful people.

Mature and thoughtful morons, maybe. I can't think of any instances where he really, actually exagerated. Sure, he has talked with lots of positivity about things he has done in the past, like all politicians do. He compares well with many politicians who are flat-out liars, claiming that they have done things they have not, like serving the country, making it safer, etc. Pretty much anyone who thinks Al Gore is a compulsive exaggerator probably swallowed the line given by an equally swallowing and regurgitating media.

For more on that, I'm afraid I don't have a neato website you can read, but Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them by Al Franken does an excellent job of deconstructing the myth that Al Gore is some kind of frikken liar. He's not. He's just not, okay?

If you watch an inconvenient truth, you will see that there is little if any exaggeration there. If anything, it could be called "A Defense of the Global Warming hypothesis" which sought to prove that his concerns were not at all overblown and that the evidence was fairly overwhelming. I don't think anyone looking at that film would say, "Oh that's a whole bunch of overblown shock tactics" unless their mouth was firmly grasping the penis of big industry.
posted by Deathalicious at 9:01 PM on October 12, 2007


And as for the whole "Who uses more electricity" bull. Yes, it is true that Al Gore has a large home that uses a lot of electricity. My understanding that part of the reason he has a high bill is because he *totally* exercises the green option for his electricity and it's much higher.

And all of the praise for Bush's envirofriendly ranch ignores the fact that he easily consumes more resources in his other homes (I'm fairly confident he has more than just the ranch).

Oh, and let's not forget the horrifically bad environmental decisions Bush has made since coming into office. Gore would not have invaded Iraq, and he can fly a hummer to the moon and back before he expends the kind of energy that's been wasting turning a authoritarian hell hole run by a despotic ruler into a anarchic hell hole run by local gangs of thugs. That's, of course, ignoring the fact that Bush hates nature and has been doing everything in his power to let companies rape the earth as much as possible before Armageddon comes around.
posted by Deathalicious at 9:08 PM on October 12, 2007


Meh. I was hoping they'd have the guts disregard the usual nomination procedures and give it to the monks of Burma.
posted by homunculus at 9:16 PM on October 12, 2007


In case Google is listening, LeroyFDermit is an idiot.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:05 AM on October 13, 2007


Al Gore belongs in jail.
posted by eustatic at 5:33 AM on October 13, 2007


"If he hadn't inherited such a mess, I think he would have had two terms, and be highly thought of." - posted by Malor

Obviously I disagree. Bit of a derail, but not everyone who is successful in private life should be in public office. Gore and Carter I think are two of a kind on this.
Where we differ, I suspect, is where we place weight on decisions made. I'll concede your arguments (in part for the sake of brevity, but also granting the truth there) but it isn't at all what Carter inherited that I think made him a bad president.
I think Carter's position on the middle east coupled with his overt religious stance (if right wingers are fundies, that's bad, but if they're on the left, somehow they get a pass - never understood that...oh, must be the lefties are not using it as a dodge and aren't hypocrites, uh, huh.) which - whether he chose to speak on it or not - did in fact bleed into policy, would have led to some serious complications in his second term.

To be more explicit - Carter (and Brzezinski) invented the Afghan Mujahadeen, invited (or enticed) the Soviets to invade Afghanistan - I wholeheartedly grant Reagan increased aid, but the $40 billion in seed money Carter shipped over to train the Muslim Fundies wasn't chicken feed back then (say, didn't we lose $9 billion somewhere recently?).
Needless to say that's where bin Laden and our buddies from The Base came from.
Prompted by the Soviets looking to dominate the Persian Gulf, Carter started the Carter Doctrine to play keep away from the Soviets but he said in essence:

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

Explain to me how that doesn't dovetail with what we're carrying out right now.
Oh, but when Bush does it, it's wrong, because y'know, he's a Republican. (But don't take my obviously biased because I'm a filthy conservative word for it - here's a progressive - hell, he's even from Amherst)
The RDF Carter built became CENTCOM and the naval presence in the gulf was greatly expanded.
Meanwhile (right or wrong) the intelligence community was scuttled after Watergate, Carter did nada about that (we lost some key area specialists) and the Iranian revolution caught us with our pants down.
And say, what did Carter do with his buddy the Shah of Iran anyway, y'know, the guy he called a leader of supreme wisdom and gave asylum to which prompted the seizure of the embassy and taking of hostages in Iran?
Oh, that's right, they didn't care about the Shah after cancer killed him, they just wanted the money he stole from their country - which Carter froze by executive order 12170.
(I don't blame Carter for Delta not rescuing the hostages, I blame Oliver North, but that's a whole 'nother thing).

Y'know who did give the Iranians back the money the Shah stole from them? That asshole Reagan. Yeah, what a prick. Trading billions of dollars stolen from the Iranians for people's lives.

Not to mention all the Farm Aid in the 80s which - although blamed on Reagan - started with Carter's embargo of the Soviets.
Oh, yeah, and he reinstated the draft, quite the peacenik Carter was. Gimme a break.
I applaud what he's done when out of office, hell, I actually like the guy, he's into woodworking, he seems like a genuinely good person, but this hero worship makes me ill. Whether it's Gore or Reagan or whomever.
In policy you look at things not people or intentions.

If Rush Limbaugh (whom I greatly dislike) was in office and had a well-reasoned foreign policy and troop withdrawal plan, I'd favor it.
My dislike or like for anyone has nothing to do with their implementation of policy. I judge Carter on those terms. (I'll grant Nixon and Reagan were deplorable)
But again - where one weights given facts in retrospect is something of a matter of taste.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:37 PM on October 13, 2007 [1 favorite]


Also I suspect it's all a ploy to draw attention away from Edward's affair.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:23 PM on October 13, 2007


Congress to bestow its highest award on the Dalai Lama, angering China
posted by homunculus at 10:31 PM on October 13, 2007


I suspect the Dalia Lama's award is just a ploy to draw attention away from....
posted by Smedleyman at 11:12 PM on October 13, 2007


Do people forget that this planet is pretty much always approaching or receding from an ice age?

Oh, yeah. I forgot. OK, never mind global climate change, massive worldwide droughts and famines, whole societies inundated under sea water . . . Just hang on, kids, because an *ice age* is coming. OK, a *mini* ice-age (and at $7 for a single drink if you even open the refrigerator).

Get stuffed, moron.
posted by spitbull at 6:42 AM on October 14, 2007


Not Nobel Winners
posted by homunculus at 10:31 AM on October 14, 2007


Supreme Court Gives Gore's Nobel to Bush
posted by homunculus at 10:34 AM on October 14, 2007


The right wing’s ‘Gore derangement syndrome.’
As ThinkProgress has highlighted, the right wing lost no time in harshly attacking Al Gore for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Bill Kristol, for example, called the award a “prize given by bloviators to a bloviator for nothing.” The New York Times’s Paul Krugman explains the right’s hatred:
The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved. […]

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.
posted by ericb at 9:54 AM on October 15, 2007 [1 favorite]


Is it my imagination, or is Bill Kristol losing brain cells at an alarming rate?
posted by lodurr at 11:58 AM on October 15, 2007


Once, in Taos, New Mexico, I stomped on a bulbous brown recluse spider that'd crawled out of the woodpile of my rental cottage, and this great long parasite that looked like an intenstinal tract in miniature slowly unfurled itself from the gut splat of the spider and started shuddering blindly across the floor.

Ok, I guess we know who William Gibson's sock puppet is on Mefi.
posted by mecran01 at 12:41 PM on October 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


« Older What does it feel like to die?...  |  Censored: The scariest news ma... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments