News Al Gore: Could Nobel Prize Spur Presidential Run?

[mheslep]

If you've read through the thread then you should know full well that evidence has been provided, in the form of quotes by the very PEOPLE who actually designed the infrastructure of the net.

No, that was evidence that he has supporters. What they said was still in the abstract; there's nothing there in the Cerf quote about what he actually did

 

[BobG]

The text of the HPCA should probably be included, as well:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:S.272.ENR:

Gore was also one of the driving forces behind http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c104:3:./temp/~c1044tWMBG:: of 1996, even though, as VP, he played no official part in its passage in the Senate.

Every 'creation' has its plusses and minuses:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.9135/pub_detail.asp

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/28/telecom_dereg/index.html

Regardless of how much value you put in Gore's internet efforts, it's undisputed that his actions eventually led to the enrichment of our culture with this Dan Quayle comment: "If Gore invented the Internet, I invented spell-check."

 

[mjsd]

If the climate change fear-mongers want to be taken seriously then they should show more respect for the public and stop lying to them.

I am not sure what your personal position on climate change, but I think that, certainly, you are no fan of ppl exaggerating things. fair enough.

I personally feel that this debate of whether human activity is the main culprit in global warming, is a bit like the debate about whether "smoking is bad for you" 40 years ago. yeah, today we have slightly more scientific evidence and "proof" about the harm that smoking may do to you, but surely there were a lot of anti-smoking campaigners being branded as fear-mongers back then. So, my point was really that there is a fine line between outright lying and constructing a persuasive argument that is easy enough for the public to understand (without being far too technical); for the public to related to (ie. that "fear factor" of what may happen if we don't act etc...) and has the appeal to the wider audience. Now if you drop all that in name of getting all facts right, you will inevitably lose a large amount of your arguments as well as the audiences. Gore may have overstepped the line on several occasions (9 according to the British court, right?), but the critics of his film/ideas also tend to dismiss the entire film rather than just the 9 facts in an attempt to construct a persuasive argument against the idea of human activity led to warming of themselves...so the battle is more than just about the facts... if you don't like it being fought that way, well may be you should make a film of your own on that point.


recently, Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts and long-time professor at Colorado State University, gave a lecture at uni of North Carolina accusing Gore and others for "brainwashing our children". He also mentioned how other scientists may refuse to speak out against something (ie. human activity led to global warming) that is scientifically wrong in the fear of losing grants.

But in a sense Dr Gray is also a fear-monger himself by making claims that we are brainwashing the younger generation (he thinks we are all stupid or something?). In any case, the jury is still out on this issue, the only question is whether it would be too late to act when we wait until all the facts are known.



various news sources used for this post
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003946751_nobelgray13.html
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22579885-663,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040601959.html (earlier this year)

 

[Curious3141]

I have to agree, Gore had nothing to do with the internet (which is run by businesses, not the government). Most people don't know that though.

The internet started with ARPANET, completely a DOD initiative. It has evolved and continues to evolve, with the influence of private enterprise, governments and academia.

Al Gore did have something more than a marginal role in the evolution of the internet. He obviously saw the benefit of having a massive network of computers as far back as 1986, and made efforts to ensure funding for such initiatives. Many even credit him with coining the phrase "information superhighway".

This site gives the dope : http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/#w4 You can scroll down and read about Al Gore's involvement.

That Gore became such a laughing stock in connection with the internet is unfortunate, and the reasons are somewhat unfair to him. The press never bothered to give much coverage at the time to his speeches about the potential of the internet in the 80s and 90s. Then, when Gore happened to mention his involvement in an interview, he was widely (and probably maliciously) misquoted as having claimed he "invented" the internet (he has never actually used those words). When the boffins actually involved in designing the infrastructure of the net speak out in defence of Gore, the press conveniently ignores it.

I'd rather see Gore as President of the USA *any day* than either the blithering idiot Bush or the scheming Hillary.

 

[Art]

If you've read through the thread then you should know full well that evidence has been provided, in the form of quotes by the very PEOPLE who actually designed the infrastructure of the net.

Evidence of what exactly? He spoke in favour of what has become known as the internet as did several other gov't representatives but did this have any material effect on it's development? Was his contribution greater than the other sponsors of communication related legislation? How much federal money for it's development is directly attributable to his support?

To claim as he did that he took the initiative in creating the internet is to say the least exaggerating his own contribution but likewise his critics who misquote him as claiming to have invented the internet are also guilty of exaggeration.

Would early supporters of Einstein's Theory of Relativity be entitled to claim they took the initiative in creating the Theory of Relativity?

 

[vanesch]

In any case, the jury is still out on this issue, the only question is whether it would be too late to act when we wait until all the facts are known.

I agree that there is sufficient material on the table to be cautious. So as a policy, the argument that there is *a possibility* of human-caused global warning, it to be taken seriously, and no, the biosphere shouldn't be considered as a big laboratory for a mad scientist's experiments. So I do recon that it is a good idea to take the *possibility* seriously, to investigate more, and to see if we shouldn't already, as precaution, take preventive action and limit the emission of potential greenhouse gases until we find out for sure that they don't harm, or on the contrary, that they were the culpritt and that we did a good thing in anticipating it. So from that point of view, I agree.

But to me, a NOBEL goes much further than advancing a plausible hypothesis. It goes about PROVING EXPERIMENTALLY BEYOND DOUBT a very important scientific, political or social fact.

So Gore can receive his prize, if it is FIRMLY ESTABLISHED that he was right, a proof we will only have in several decades.

Gosh, the people proving experimentally the existence of the neutrino, after it was already theoretically proposed since many years, still had to wait for 30 years for their prize.

There was much less scientific doubt in that case, than in the case of human-induced global warming.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree that there is sufficient material on the table to be cautious. So as a policy, the argument that there is *a possibility* of human-caused global warning, it to be taken seriously, and no, the biosphere shouldn't be considered as a big laboratory for a mad scientist's experiments. So I do recon that it is a good idea to take the *possibility* seriously, to investigate more, and to see if we shouldn't already, as precaution, take preventive action and limit the emission of potential greenhouse gases until we find out for sure that they don't harm, or on the contrary, that they were the culpritt and that we did a good thing in anticipating it. So from that point of view, I agree.

But to me, a NOBEL goes much further than advancing a plausible hypothesis. It goes about PROVING EXPERIMENTALLY BEYOND DOUBT a very important scientific, political or social fact.

So Gore can receive his prize, if it is FIRMLY ESTABLISHED that he was right, a proof we will only have in several decades.

Gosh, the people proving experimentally the existence of the neutrino, after it was already theoretically proposed since many years, still had to wait for 30 years for their prize.

There was much less scientific doubt in that case, than in the case of human-induced global warming.

Gore didn't receive his Noble for science, he got it for his public service. I believe that the quote from the Noble committee was that he has probably done more to educate the public about GW than any other single human being.

Of course Bush senior called him "Mr Ozone" when Gore was talking to Congress and the public about GW over twenty years ago. Which reminds me, didn't he play a large role in arguing to ban CFCs as well?

Eat your words Bush.

On the role of humans in GW, the IPCC [2500 experts who had to agree on a number] puts it at 90% certainty. Also, no matter the role of ACO2 in our weather today, which is debatable, I believe that human produced CO2 is expected to dominate the climate system within the next twenty years or so.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find it amazing that what once earned Gore the title of "Mr Ozone" is now argued to not have happened.

History rewritten, once again.

 

[Art]

I find it amazing that what once earned Gore the title of "Mr Ozone" is now argued to not have happened.

History rewritten, once again.

I haven't seen anybody argue against the contention that Gore has for many years been a vocal supporter of AGW could you quote the posts where this happened?

The question is should he have received a Nobel prize for his support of an unproven theory and why the Peace prize?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I haven't seen anybody argue against the contention that Gore has for many years been a vocal supporter of AGW could you quote the posts where this happened?

I was responding to the notion that others have worked on this far longer. Gore has probably worked on this as long as just about anyone.

The question is should he have received a Nobel prize for his support of an unproven theory and why the Peace prize?

He won it for his education of the public about an issue that threatens humanity and that will certainly play a role in world peace. Already we see political tensions arising over the opening of the Northern passage. The Russians even planted a flag using a Submarine! And GW is no longer considered to be an unproven theory, so regardless of AGW's role, GW is a critical issue for everyone, and this fact is no longer disputed in mainstream science. And IMO, those who argue that 90% confidence isn't good enough to justify action are being irrational. Those who argue that we don't have 90% confidence are fringe and should post their evidence in S&D. I'll even make a sticky for it; right next to the UFO section.

Just wait until people start running out of drinking water, which is close to happening in Atlanta right now.

If you don't understand the connection between peace and climate change, then you don't understand the impact that AGW might have. Not long ago I posted a paper done for the Defense Dept that is part of an effort to evaluate the potential impact of GW on national security. I tried to spot it but will have to post later. It is somewhere in Earth Sciences.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A huge underground lake has been found in Sudan's Darfur region, scientists say, which they believe could help end the conflict in the arid region. "The root cause of the conflict is resources - drought and desertification in North Darfur."

http://www.care2.com/news/member/101256935/427716

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, as for his role in helping to bring about the modern internet, it seems that many here don't understand the concepts of leadership and spearheading important issues. Change often begins with a voice crying from the wilderness. Politically, Al Gore was that voice for the information super-highway, ozone depletion, and GW.

So with that and his opposition to Bush's policies in Iraq, he has been correct, correct, correct, and, correct.

 

[Art]

http://www.care2.com/news/member/101256935/427716

There was a follow up to that story

Ancient Darfur lake 'is dried up'
A vast underground lake that scientists hoped could help to end violence in Sudan's Darfur region probably dried up thousands of years ago, an expert says.
Alain Gachet, who used satellite images and radar in his research, said the area received too little rain and had the wrong rock types for water storage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6908224.stm

and anyway isn't GW supposed to cause greater precipitation not less or is that only on Tuesdays and Thursdays??

 

[Art]

Whilst on the subject of U-turns and rewriting history, after years of dire warnings of severe drought in England with hot, arid summers guaranteed because of GW incredibly without turning a hair the climate alarmist folk publish this;

Country England under water: scientists global warming link to increased rain
Source: Copyright 2007, Independent (UK)
Date: July 23, 2007
Byline: Michael McCarthy

It's official: the heavier rainfall in Britain is being caused by climate change, a major new scientific study will reveal this week, as the country reels from summer downpours of unprecedented ferocity.

More intense rainstorms across parts of the northern hemisphere are being generated by man-made global warming, the study has established for the first time * an effect which has long been predicted but never before proved.

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=80663
It is spectacular U-turns such as this which makes many people sceptical of the whole GW issue. It seems every prediction they have ever made has been wrong which is why these days they simply rewrite their predictions after the fact!

I guess a theory that claims if it's dry it's GW and if it's wet it's GW is going to be very hard to disprove

 

[vanesch]

On the role of humans in GW, the IPCC [2500 experts who had to agree on a number] puts it at 90% certainty.

The question is: how is that number (90%) obtained ? Is it a number of standard deviations from a carefully worked out distribution of variables ? To claim discovery in elementary particle physics, you need at least 5 sigma. For my PhD I had a 2.8 sigma deviation, and I still had to formulate it as "suggestive data but not conclusive".
As others point out, the predictions and modelling of AGW seem to be a moving target. That's not really "hard scientific fact", that's still in the speculative and mostly suggestive domain.
Do I consider AGW as bogus ? No. It is a serious possibility. Do I consider it as scientifically established ? No. Not at all. But what's worse, there has been as of yet no sound and clear prediction by a sound and clear model that has been tested without failure against new data. It's all "explaining data after the fact". It's not yet "repeated predictions by clearly deduced models who are verified after the prediction", the way science is normally done. If it were so firmly established, there would be no difficulty

So, again, the very fact that some scientists (many scientists) now claim that the possibility exists should be taken seriously in policies: you cannot wait for the scientific establishment of a global disaster before taking preventive action. But it is not because the possibility exists and is taken seriously, that it is a proven fact.

The danger I see with things like the IPCC is that it is now publicly declared to be politically not correct to ask critical questions about AGW. Or you TAKE IT FOR GRANTED, or you're a fringe. That's not the way to conduct science. If that were so, then the modelling and predictions would be already beyond doubt very precise and fringe claims would have to go against mountains of predictions which had been verified experimentally with high precision. That means that if you ask for means to investigate in the reality of AGW, that you will not get grants. However, if you ask for means to establish a bit more AGW, that this is a politically correct thing to do and you'll get your money. As such, one biases the scientific research. It would be interesting to know in what measure there IS GW, in what measure it is antropologically induced, and WHAT ASPECT of human behaviour is doing so, and what positive feedback mechanism is responsible for what contribution.

You cannot, at the same time, claim that the effects are beyond doubt and the causes are well-known and that it is fringe to be critical about it, and having to change your models and predictions every 10 minutes to explain new data, and be uncertain about the contributions of different effects or certain essential mechanisms.

As such, claims such as 90% certainty is a non-scientific statement. That's what bothers me with the whole AGW issue. I understand that there is a political issue. Scientists take the possibility for real, and have suggestive data. They don't understand the whole thing yet, and scientifically, they are not sure at all. But they realize that as long as they say that it is not scientifically established, that politicians will not take their claims seriously if that means making unpopular decisions. The scientists also know that IF they are right, that it is NOW that one has to do something, and not WHEN they will know for sure and that it will take decades to find out for sure. So all this is "pretending to be sure" because it is the safest bet: if they ARE right (and they'll know 30 years from now) then it was a "good lie to tell them that we were sure", because by this lie, we pushed politicians to the right decisions. If it turns out NOT to be correct, then nothing really bad did happen (and my carreer is finished in any case).
So this is a kind of "lie for a good purpose". But it is not scientific.

 

[Art]

On the role of humans in GW, the IPCC [2500 experts who had to agree on a number] puts it at 90% certainty. Also, no matter the role of ACO2 in our weather today, which is debatable, I believe that human produced CO2 is expected to dominate the climate system within the next twenty years or so.

This oft quoted fallacy is a prime example of how numbers are simply plucked out of the air to support a poor argument.

The IPCC simply doesn't work that way. Each of the 2,500 reviewers work in isolation with the end result being 'interpreted' by the governmental appointees of the IPCC many of which are not themselves scientists.

This makes sense to some degree as the fields are so highly specialised it would be impossible for a reviewer of say for example the calibration method used in the extraction of ice cores in the Antarctic to have any sensible or worthwhile input into how this affects other totally unrelated elements of climate science.

Some high profile reviewers have resigned from the panel in disgust at how their reviews have been 'interpreted' and then portrayed by the politically biased IPCC board.

It is also worth remembering the IPCC itself does zero research. It only reviews papers submitted by scientists who wish them to review their work which means from the start there is a blatant bias with funding going to those researchers who support AGW and denied to those who wish to debunk it it stands to reason practically every paper submitted for review will be pro AGW. With only one side of the argument being presented it is not surprising that the AGW fanatics are in the driving seat.

In November 2006 a survey of the members of the 12000 member U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions.

As you can see even the so called consensus claimed by the 'chicken littles' is a lie.

 

[mjsd]

As such, claims such as 90% certainty is a non-scientific statement. That's what bothers me with the whole AGW issue. I understand that there is a political issue. Scientists take the possibility for real, and have suggestive data. They don't understand the whole thing yet, and scientifically, they are not sure at all. But they realize that as long as they say that it is not scientifically established, that politicians will not take their claims seriously if that means making unpopular decisions. The scientists also know that IF they are right, that it is NOW that one has to do something, and not WHEN they will know for sure and that it will take decades to find out for sure. So all this is "pretending to be sure" because it is the safest bet: if they ARE right (and they'll know 30 years from now) then it was a "good lie to tell them that we were sure", because by this lie, we pushed politicians to the right decisions. If it turns out NOT to be correct, then nothing really bad did happen (and my carreer is finished in any case).

I kind of like this assessment of the situation. It is better be safe than sorry. After all, if global warming is indeed induced by human activity, it is probably irrevesible. And perhaps if we start some cutting back now, we may find it easier to adapt, than say 30 years from now, we have no choice but to cut back immensely, causing significant change in our lifestyle, the economy etc immediately. Even if we are wrong (or lucky enough that some other future events make the situation reversible), it would only be a short term loss.

as far as whether this is

a kind of "lie for a good purpose".

well.. it depends how you look at it. it is "good purpose" if you are concerned about the environment, but it is probably not so good if you are concerned about continual economic growth and domination of your state. Certainly, many are hoping that the status quo (emission target etc.) won't be changed in the near future just for the sake of $$$ and standard of living. so for some it can be really bad should this GW issue turns out to be just a farce. I am sure all of you understand this point better than I do.


then, the remaining question would be why does the IPCC want to take the "biased" view towards AGW? Does it has the thinking that "it's better be safe than sorry"? or does it want to use this as an excuse to curb the growth of developing countries like China, India fearing that they may become too powerful one day? Or too want to slow the growth in dominance of the USA? OR are those ppl at IPCC just a bunch of lunatics?

we may probably need another 30 years to work that out...

 

[vanesch]

I kind of like this assessment of the situation. It is better be safe than sorry. After all, if global warming is indeed induced by human activity, it is probably irrevesible.

It for sure is not irreversible by itself, but irreversible "damage" may have been done, such as the end of humanity. In how much this is really "damage" or the ultimate ecologist's victory is a philosophical issue .Given that the main result of all these climate change models is: a change in temperature (and some other variables) as a function of CO2 release, I guess they are more or less reversible (maybe with some hysteresis), at least when I read the primer about the models on the IPCC website:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/IPCCTP.II(E).pdf

The problem I see is that scientists are not being 100% scientific for politics' sake. Should a scientist lie about his science in order to influence "dumb" politicians in the right direction (the direction of "better safe than sorry" ) ?

And perhaps if we start some cutting back now, we may find it easier to adapt, than say 30 years from now, we have no choice but to cut back immensely, causing significant change in our lifestyle, the economy etc immediately. Even if we are wrong (or lucky enough that some other future events make the situation reversible), it would only be a short term loss.

Well, that still remains a political decision. I, for one, am only ready to suffer a little bit for the sake of the hypothetical well-being of eventual humans in 100 years. If I have the choice between leading a miserable life right now, to make Earth a better place to live in 100 years, or live my life decently, but with as probable consequence a disaster in 100 years, I resolutely opt for the second option. Sorry.
Of course, if I have to do a moderate effort, I'm maybe willing to do so. But I won't go back to the stone age just for the sake of the well-being of people that don't even exist yet.

well.. it depends how you look at it. it is "good purpose" if you are concerned about the environment, but it is probably not so good if you are concerned about continual economic growth and domination of your state. Certainly, many are hoping that the status quo (emission target etc.) won't be changed in the near future just for the sake of $$$ and standard of living. so for some it can be really bad should this GW issue turns out to be just a farce. I am sure all of you understand this point better than I do.

Well, this is an issue that shouldn't be neglected. Imagine that we are too careful, and impose such drastic cutbacks that this generates an economical crisis on world scale which triggers terrible conflicts, and total war. First of all, this will probably generate a lot more ecological problems, and moreover, we've now traded hypothetical future wellbeing for immediate misery. I don't think that's a good deal.

So we should be cautious, on both sides. We should try to take the best decision. And you can only take the best decision when you have the best information available - and of course smart and responsable decision takers.

then, the remaining question would be why does the IPCC want to take the "biased" view towards AGW? Does it has the thinking that "it's better be safe than sorry"? or does it want to use this as an excuse to curb the growth of developing countries like China, India fearing that they may become too powerful one day? Or too want to slow the growth in dominance of the USA? OR are those ppl at IPCC just a bunch of lunatics?

I'm not a climate scientist and I take it for granted that there are serious indications about all this stuff. But I've seen also an attitude about the IPCC which, to me as a scientist, doesn't smell good: the lack of critical attitude. I wonder if there's not some group think phenomenon going on in the climate sciences.

That said, I think the issue IS serious. We should take all the measures we can, without doing damage to our way of living. And we can! Nuclear power, for instance, is a good solution, but people - especially ecologists - still don't want to see that. Nuclear power, even in its wildest disaster phantasies, is uncapable of generating an ecological catastrophe as the one that the AGW predictions hold out for us. Even 100 crazy accidents like Chernobyl are a joke compared to what is predicted (100 Chernobyls generate about as many casualties as 1 year of car traffic, btw).

So instead of thinking of "cutback" we should maybe think of "technology change".

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, that still remains a political decision. I, for one, am only ready to suffer a little bit for the sake of the hypothetical well-being of eventual humans in 100 years. If I have the choice between leading a miserable life right now, to make Earth a better place to live in 100 years, or live my life decently, but with as probable consequence a disaster in 100 years, I resolutely opt for the second option. Sorry.

Ah, you many-worlders are a tough lot!

 

[vanesch]

Ah, you many-worlders are a tough lot!

Hey, I tried to be nice: I said that I was willing to do an effort

 

[mjsd]

Well, this is an issue that shouldn't be neglected. Imagine that we are too careful, and impose such drastic cutbacks that this generates an economical crisis on world scale which triggers terrible conflicts, and total war.

firstly, being too careful won't be a concern because it simply will never happen. Just as no countries in this world will sacrifice its own standard of living to help other poorer ones, I don't see anyone yielding in this matter unless they are forced to by either the "doomsday" scenario or by another more powerful country.

secondly, if ALL countries do the same, you are only shifting the absolute scale but not the relative scale between countries (but it is a big if...). Besides, there are so many countries which are in huge economical crisis already, therefore strictly speaking only the bigger countries going to lose out in this... so by saying that we don't want to be too careful simply means:

The rich and powerful don't want to give up anything at all despite the fact that they are so better off than others already.

a reality we are loath to love...

First of all, this will probably generate a lot more ecological problems, and moreover, we've now traded hypothetical future wellbeing for immediate misery. I don't think that's a good deal.

True, we may not be around 100 years from now, and frankly who cares about what those suckers in the future need to deal with when we are not the one who need to face it? However, this kind of attitude won't get us very far in life... eventually we will stumble on something that we may later regret. Suppose the horrific effect of climate change will materialise in 40 years and not 100 years. then perhaps we would regret that we didn't do anything to make our later years more comfortable and has to endure a "torturing death"... are we willing to gamble? perhaps some would. But it is now not so clear what IS a good deal here. I wish life is that black/white and we can then make very decisive actions but it is not, so and unless you are a gambler, perhaps you should really plan for the future/long term (it is kind of fairer to others too ).

 

[BobG]

firstly, being too careful won't be a concern because it simply will never happen. Just as no countries in this world will sacrifice its own standard of living to help other poorer ones, I don't see anyone yielding in this matter unless they are forced to by either the "doomsday" scenario or by another more powerful country.

secondly, if ALL countries do the same, you are only shifting the absolute scale but not the relative scale between countries (but it is a big if...). Besides, there are so many countries which are in huge economical crisis already, therefore strictly speaking only the bigger countries going to lose out in this... so by saying that we don't want to be too careful simply means:

The rich and powerful don't want to give up anything at all despite the fact that they are so better off than others already.

a reality we are loath to love...

The world doesn't exist in a static equilibrium. The balance in power, whether economic or military, constantly changes. The US might not object too much if ALL countries do the same, since it would have the effect of freezing the current balance as is. Countries hoping to improve their lot in the world wouldn't be nearly as happy - especially countries where a high percentage of the population are already living in poverty. Making their condition any worse means people start dieing, or dieing at a higher rate where the standard of living is 'barely living'.

And, yes, rich and powerful aren't eagerly awaiting the day that China and/or India catch up to them economically. No country remains a world power forever and the US will be no exception. That doesn't mean the US would (or should) be willing to hurry along the day someone else replaces the US as a world power. It's not going to seem very fair to grant exceptions for countries that are rapidly developing that you don't grant for the US and Europe.

It's a little like asking for a progressive income tax, except the UN can't actually force the rich to accept their policies the way the US government can force higher income citizens to pay more in taxes.

 

[Gokul43201]

Countries hoping to improve their lot in the world wouldn't be nearly as happy - especially countries where a high percentage of the population are already living in poverty. Making their condition any worse means people start dieing...
...
It's not going to seem very fair to grant exceptions for countries that are rapidly developing

Most countries that fall in the latter category (eg: Angola, China, Armenia, India, Sudan, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Vietnam) also fall under the former.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh yes, as for his role in helping to bring about the modern internet, it seems that many here don't understand the concepts of leadership and spearheading important issues. Change often begins with a voice crying from the wilderness. Politically, Al Gore was that voice for the information super-highway, ozone depletion, and GW.

Well perhaps if he had said 'I took the initiative in creating a political climate that helped enable other people to create the internet', he wouldn't sound so stupogant.*

[*That's a new word I'm working on to capture the combination of arrogance and stupidity it requires for him to believe he did anything more than help spend money to support other peoples' ideas.]

[edit] Btw, who took the initiative for creating "An Inconvenient Truth"? Gore may have written the book and given all the speeches, but shouldn't the people who paid for all that be recognized? Gore should turn over his Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize to the real heroes behind his book.

 

[Evo]

Well perhaps if he had said 'I took the initiative in creating a political climate that helped enable other people to create the internet', he wouldn't sound so stupogant.*

Except he didn't even do that, the internet had already been created.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, something else here - did anyone else find it ironic that Greenpeace was quoted in many of the articles about Gore's Nobel Prize. That would be the same Greenpeace that opposes alternate energy solutions such as wind power and nuclear power that could actually help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[Gokul43201]

It seems a reminder is due that Gore was awarded the Prize for his work relating to global warming, not his work relating to the internet.

 

[Art]

Seems Gore is definitely not running. Opinion polls show no increase in support as a result of his award.

Former US Vice President Al Gore has said he has no plans to enter the race for the White House, despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize last week.
There had been some speculation that the award could persuade the Democrat to throw his hat in the ring.

But he told Norwegian state broadcaster NRK: "I don't have plans to be a candidate again, so I don't really see it in that context at all."
<snip>

Asked by Gallup if they would like to see Mr Gore run for president in 2008, people said no by a margin of 54% to 41%, about the same as in March, when people opposed his running by 57% to 38%.

Even among Democrats there was no visible surge of interest in him entering the race.

In the new survey, 48% said they would like him to run and 43% said they would not.

In March, Democrats were in favour of his entering the race by 54% to 41%.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1288751,00.html

 

[vsingh165]

I don't think Gore needs to run, as Hillary Clinton already shows a stronger environmental policy than most of the other candidates in the election. Here's an interesting link for you all

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/08/09/clinton/

 

[docholliday]

The values and goals that Gore's dad had for Al Gore, continue to be remembered and followed by Gore. It was his dad,a Senatior, who helped instill in him the dream of becoming a president, and thus he ran in 2000. Gore's method of speaking and debating and even his political ideologies are similar to his dad. His dad also thought him that in life, if he fails to achieve a dream he should not obstinately continue to pursue it. Rather, he should strive to successfully achieve a better dream. Al Gore has remembered his dad's teaching by winning the Nobel Peace Prize, giving him much better international recognition than PRESIDENT Bush. Thus, Gore will not try again to become president, but will continue to achieve a status better than one than the President of United States has.

 

[kach22i]

Thus, Gore will not try again to become president, but will continue to achieve a status better than one than the President of United States has.

Not hard to do these days.