News Al Gore: Could Nobel Prize Spur Presidential Run?

[Ivan Seeking]

Could Nobel Prize Spur Gore To Run In '08?

...But the possibility that former Vice President Al Gore might take the prize has some Gore supporters buzzing that the 2000 Democratic Party nominee for president might be convinced to take the plunge once again. [continued]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/10/politics/main3355237.shtml?source=mostpop_story

I thought he was out for sure, but if Gore steps into the race, it could be all over. That solves the Hillary problem and easily trumps Edwards and Obama...and helps to draw the Southern vote.

 

[Moridin]

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

IPCC and Gore got it.

"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Sometimes I wonder if it is just spin. Getting an Oscar, then a NP (seems odd that climate data has something to do with peace).

 

[chemisttree]

Maybe Hillary could run as VP with Gore! If that were come to pass, I'm sure his days would be numbered... and we would have our first woman president.

Note to Al Gore... Stay away from convertibles!

 

[marcus]

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

IPCC and Gore got it.
... (seems odd that climate data has something to do with peace).

wrecking the planet has a lot in common with war

I think it is an intelligent extension of Nobel's will, to put working to save the planet on par with working for peace.

climate havoc can do a lot of the same things as war:
spread disease
cause famine
trigger mass migration---provoke genocide
destabilize societies/degrade cultures

and climate shock can make it more likely that resource wars will break out

I applaud the Peace Prize committee's interpretive extension. It recognizes something very important. I hope they continue to put saving the planet on the same plane as peace (both critically involve international trust and cooperation for common goals, and the restraint of aggressive greed). Hope they make it a Peace and Planet prize and continue awarding it to other leaders like Gore in the future.

 

[siddharth]

IMO, while Gore did play an important role in raising awareness about climate change (especially in the US), it's nice that the contribution of the scientists, who reviewed and published the IPCC reports which gave the actual detailed evidence, was recognized.

 

[kach22i]

Way to go Al.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Congratulations to Al and the IPCC!

First he helped to drive the "information super-highway" [that was his baby, which is what we are all using here today], and now a Nobel Prize for his efforts wrt climate change. Gore is a true visionary.

 

[sneez]

Very sad and ludacris at the same time.

 

[marcus]

Congratulations to Al and the IPCC!

First he helped to drive the "information super-highway" [that was his baby, which is what we are all using here today],...

That's right! He never claimed that he "invented" the internet, but he was the first leading politician to see the potential and get behind it. He spearheaded the political side of creating the internet. Two of the main architects acknowledged this in a statement that Wikipedia quotes (I expect you know the statemement IvanS, but for those who don't here it is)

...a CNN interview in which he said, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."[88]

In response to this controversy, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn wrote a 2000-09-29 article (originally sent via email) that described Gore's contributions to the Internet since the 1970s, including his work on the Gore Bill:[89]

As the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A petition asking Gore to run
http://www.algore.org/

already signed it.

I also hammered the Nat. Dem. website.
http://www.democrats.org/contact.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sept. 23, 2002

... I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.

...I believe that we are perfectly capable of staying the course in our war against Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, while simultaneously taking those steps necessary to build an international coalition to join us in taking on Saddam Hussein in a timely fashion. If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first, especially if you're in the middle of a gunfight with somebody who's out after you. [continued]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html

- Al Gore

 

[Art]

His 'An Inconvenient Truth' might more aptly be named 'A Convenient Lie'

'Friends of the Earth' or is that 'Enemies of the Truth' are disgusted that the high court in England during a hearing on whether it should be shown to school children has identified 9 deliberate untruths in his 'documentary' which the court determined must be pointed out to children if the film is shown. Needless to say the 'chicken littles' are disgusted; you can't tell school kids the truth and undo all their propaganda, don't people realize the lies are for their own good.

Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”

. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece

Hence the need to bestow a nobel prize on him. If the facts won't support his credibility perhaps this honour will.

Does the US really want yet another president with a proven track record of lying to the people in order to further his own agenda?

 

[edward]

His 'An Inconvenient Truth' might more aptly be named 'A Convenient Lie'

'Friends of the Earth' or is that 'Enemies of the Truth' are disgusted that the high court in England during a hearing on whether it should be shown to school children has identified 9 deliberate untruths in his 'documentary' which the court determined must be pointed out to children if the film is shown. Needless to say the 'chicken littles' are disgusted; you can't tell school kids the truth and undo all their propaganda, don't people realize the lies are for their own good.

. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece

Hence the need to bestow a nobel prize on him. If the facts won't support his credibility perhaps this honour will.

Does the US really want yet another president with a proven track record of lying to the people in order to further his own agenda?

Is there any proof that they were deliberate untruths?? Not hardly. Is a judge capable of intpreting the data? not hardly. Were their mistakes in the documentary?? Most likely.


"As for the errors, Kreider said, "Of the thousands of facts, the judge seemingly only took issue with a handful. We've got peer review studies that back up those facts. There were a couple of cases where we feel the film wasn't quoted accurately."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3719791&page=1

With some minor disclaimers the documentary was cleared for viewing by British students.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21103729/

 

[Art]

Is there any proof that they were deliberate untruths?? Not hardly. Is a judge capable of intpreting the data? not hardly. Were their mistakes in the documentary?? Most likely."As for the errors, Kreider said, "Of the thousands of facts, the judge seemingly only took issue with a handful. We've got peer review studies that back up those facts. There were a couple of cases where we feel the film wasn't quoted accurately."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3719791&page=1

With some minor disclaimers the documentary was cleared for viewing by British students.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21103729/

When Gore presents a documentary as scientifically proven fact then it is incumbent on him to ensure that his 'facts' are indeed facts.

The judge made no personal intervention as to his own beliefs so it is very disingenuous to attack him to support a failed argument. He interpreted the facts as a matter of law. He tested the various claims against what the scientific community consider reasonable proof and found many claims severely wanting including some such as the link between CO2 and temp as outright misleading and the piece about polar bears drowning because of melting ice was a total fabrication. The only record of polar bears drowning in recent history was 4 who died in a storm!

The 9 instances the judge found very dubious do not even have the support of the mainstream climate change advocates. They were included only to sensationalise and frighten the public into behaving the way the makers of the documentary wanted.

Anything about this strategy of 'the end justifies the means so it's okay to fix the evidence' sound familiar to you??

 

[russ_watters]

First he helped to drive the "information super-highway" [that was his baby, which is what we are all using here today], and now a Nobel Prize for his efforts wrt climate change. Gore is a true visionary.

Oh please - his influence on the early development of the internet is right up there with Bill Gates' (nonexistent).

From that quote from the inventors of tcp/ip:

No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Twice nothing is still nothing.

Gore does have one major pro working for him, though: he's not Billary.

 

[BobG]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/10/politics/main3355237.shtml?source=mostpop_story

I thought he was out for sure, but if Gore steps into the race, it could be all over. That solves the Hillary problem and easily trumps Edwards and Obama...and helps to draw the Southern vote.

Gore would still be a huge underdog to Clinton. She has too strong of a campaign staff and too big a head start in money. The strength of her campaign staff is the tougher obstacle - she isn't leaving any openings.

I think the odds are too long for Gore to even enter the race. He has the status of an ex-President already, plus still has a chance to run again if there's a better opportunity in the future. Losing in the primaries would diminish the status of what he's already accomplished, plus pretty much end any ideas of a future run.

As to Gore's "creating"/"inventing" the internet, the information superhighway is a pretty good analogy. Building/creating the US interstate highway system isn't the same as inventing roads, nor is "creating" the internet the same as inventing communication between computers. He did a lot to make it possible for the internet to grow very fast, so it's fair to say he played a significant part in the internet developing into what it is today, which is what I think he was actually claiming.

 

[edward]

When Gore presents a documentary as scientifically proven fact then it is incumbent on him to ensure that his 'facts' are indeed facts.

And the piece about polar bears drowning because of melting ice was a total fabrication. The only record of polar bears drowning in recent history was 4 who died in a storm!

Gees I know they have some natsy storms up there but this storm would have had to last for a month.

SCIENTISTS have for the first time found evidence that polar bears are drowning because climate change is melting the Arctic ice shelf.
The researchers were startled to find bears having to swim up to 60 miles across open sea to find food. They are being forced into the long voyages because the ice floes from which they feed are melting, becoming smaller and drifting farther apart.

Although polar bears are strong swimmers, they are adapted for swimming close to the shore. Their sea journeys leave them them vulnerable to exhaustion, hypothermia or being swamped by waves.

According to the new research, four bear carcases were found floating in one month in a single patch of sea off the north coast of Alaska, where average summer temperatures have increased by 2-3C degrees since 1950s.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece

 

[Evo]

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 fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening.

Uhm, talking about the internet. Yep, I wholeheartedly agree, that's the ONLY contribution he made to internet technology, he *talked about it*. And he was pretty late to the game, at that.

Judging from the negative feedback on the internet today and judging from the silence in this thread, (not many approve of the award, Ok it was a slow year and no viable nominees, better perhaps not to give one out? I agree with those that say this has lessened the meaning and purpose of the award) Gore is not a viable presidential candidate. Let's focus on viable candidates, throwing Gore into the muck is only going to cause more confusion among democrats and guarantee another loss.

 

[slugcountry]

Judging from the negative feedback on the internet today and judging from the silence in this thread, (not many approve of the award, Ok it was a slow year and no viable nominees, better perhaps not to give one out? I agree with those that say this has lessened the meaning and purpose of the award) Gore is not a viable presidential candidate. Let's focus on viable candidates, throwing Gore into the muck is only going to cause more confusion among democrats and guarantee another loss.

I would whole heartedly support him - as would the vast majority of people who call themselves liberals... that you would diminish his role in promoting a technology that was vastly expanded DUE to his lending his voice (read the article written by the architects of the net in his support for goodness sake) merely speaks of your bias against him - as does your diminishing of a nobel prize simply because it was awarded to him. Bringing about peace has more than one meaning - instead of supporting the oil tycoons he supports environmentalism - and you degrade him for it.

 

[Evo]

I would whole heartedly support him - as would the vast majority of people who call themselves liberals... that you would diminish his role in promoting a technology that was vastly expanded DUE to his lending his voice (read the article written by the architects of the net in his support for goodness sake) merely speaks of your bias against him - as does your diminishing of a nobel prize simply because it was awarded to him. Bringing about peace has more than one meaning - instead of supporting the oil tycoons he supports environmentalism - and you degrade him for it.

They were just being pc to try to get Gore's foot out of his mouth, if you knew about the growth of the internet, you would know that. He did nothing to encourage businesses taking over the internet. You *do* know what the internet is, right? I was working with it at AT&T in 1973, before it was called the internet. (want to make clear, I was not working on the internet project, I was in data networking for them)

 

[OrbitalPower]

Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn both acknowledge Gore's role in funding the government programs (ARPAnet, part of DARPA) that created the internet. It had nothing to do with "private business" and when the National Science Foundation (NSF) controlled the backbones it was called the "internet." (Yeah right.) Furthermore, it used to be called the "information super highway," when business took it over, it became more about e-commerce rather than information sharing.

He also has been working on the environmental issue for years as well.

Current polls show that Al Gore is the "most likable" among democratic candidates and all the "top-tier" democratic candidates, including Gore, should he become one, poll better than their counterparts in the Republican Party.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with those that say this has lessened the meaning and purpose of the award

That depends on whether or not you thought the award had meaning to begin with...

Lets face it: the peace prize is just a political statement by the committee. It has no meaning beyond that. And recently, the committee has used it to poke their finger in the eye of the US. Carter got it in 2002 for doing less than Gore (yay, Gore made a movie!), but both prominently poke conservatives in the eye, which makes them attractive to the socialists in Scandanavia.

Gore is not a viable presidential candidate. Let's focus on viable candidates, throwing Gore into the muck is only going to cause more confusion among democrats and guarantee another loss.

Dunno, with the field as thin as it is, I think Gore would have a decent chance.

 

[russ_watters]

Gees I know they have some natsy storms up there but this storm would have had to last for a month.

SCIENTISTS have for the first time found evidence that polar bears are drowning because climate change is melting the Arctic ice shelf...

According to the new research, four bear carcases were found floating in one month in a single patch of sea off the north coast of Alaska, where average summer temperatures have increased by 2-3C degrees since 1950s.

So where do polar bears typically die? If the carcasses were found on land, would they have said they died from walking too much? Seriously, with as much body fat as polar bears have, is it even possible for them to drown?

 

[russ_watters]

Liberals tend to be big fans of PBS, right? PBS did a couple of great documentaries on the development of computers and the internet. Here are links to them:
http://www.pbs.org/nerds/
http://www.pbs.org/opb/nerds2.0.1/

I'm shocked that Gore's name isn't mentioned in either documentary, considering the huge influence he had on the internet's development.

 

[slugcountry]

Lets face it: the peace prize is just a political statement by the committee. It has no meaning beyond that. And recently, the committee has used it to poke their finger in the eye of the US. Carter got it in 2002 for doing less than Gore (yay, Gore made a movie!), but both prominently poke conservatives in the eye, which makes them attractive to the socialists in Scandanavia.

Yes, well, seeing as it is called the Nobel PEACE Prize, it would be rather difficult to deduce why any conservative in the memorable past would deserve one.

 

[siddharth]

'Friends of the Earth' or is that 'Enemies of the Truth' are disgusted that the high court in England during a hearing on whether it should be shown to school children has identified 9 deliberate untruths in his 'documentary' which the court determined must be pointed out to children if the film is shown. Needless to say the 'chicken littles' are disgusted; you can't tell school kids the truth and undo all their propaganda, don't people realize the lies are for their own good.

Hence the need to bestow a nobel prize on him. If the facts won't support his credibility perhaps this honour will.

Does the US really want yet another president with a proven track record of lying to the people in order to further his own agenda?

You're being too harsh

There were nine points where Burton decided that AIT differed from the IPCC and that this should be addressed in the Guidance Notes for teachers to be sent out with the movie.

Unfortunately a gaggle of useless journalists have misreported this decision as one that AIT contained nine scientific errors.

Let's look at what Burton really wrote (my emphasis):

...

Burton is not saying that there are errors, he is just referring to the things that Downes alleged were error

I don't think that there is any harm in the Guidance Notes on Burton's nine points, but the usual suspects will, of course, ignore the fact that the judge found that Gore was "broadly accurate" and try to make it look as if there are serious problems with AIT and climate science.

(http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php )

 

[slugcountry]

Liberals tend to be big fans of PBS, right? PBS did a couple of great documentaries on the development of computers and the internet. Here are links to them:
http://www.pbs.org/nerds/
http://www.pbs.org/opb/nerds2.0.1/

I'm shocked that Gore's name isn't mentioned in either documentary, considering the huge influence he had on the internet's development.

What a fallacious argument you are trying to make here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore's_contributions_to_the_Internet_and_technology

"The Webbys

On 06 June 2005, Gore was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award "for three decades of contributions to the Internet" at The Webby Awards. In giving him the award, Tiffany Shlain (the awards' founder and chairwoman) stated that she "wanted to set the record straight [...] it's just one of those instances someone did amazing work for three decades as Congressman, Senator and Vice President and it got spun around into this political mess." [43] Gore, during his acceptance speech (limited to five words according to Webby Awards rules), joked: "Please don't recount this vote". [44]"

Furthermore, PBS stands for PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE, it is funded by US government money and as an organization stands only for investigative REPORTING... admittedly when this sort of actual public SERVICE is compared to a for profit media outlet (owned by an outspoken neo-con) like FOX someone like you might think PBS leans a bit left...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh please - his influence on the early development of the internet is right up there with Bill Gates' (nonexistent).

From that quote from the inventors of tcp/ip: Twice nothing is still nothing.

Very sad.

 

[mjsd]

Anything about this strategy of 'the end justifies the means so it's okay to fix the evidence' sound familiar to you??

unfortunately, if one doesn't go down that path, one cannot make a persuasive argment. It is as much to do with human psychology as the fact that not many ppl has such clear thinking as you may have (some don't like grey areas). Overall the film which gave Gore his Nobel prize, served its purpose of raising awareness (just as the prize did), which I would praise as a win for symbolism (at least).

the repercussion of the British court ruling may now mean that ppl will dismiss the entire film (again this is due to not everyone has the clear thinking you may have), and not just those handful of opinions turned facts. (ie. bad for the symbolism)

to achieve a goal one must sacrifice something, in this case some integrity in the material...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The people who invented the internet give Gore credit, but that's not good enough for our nay-sayers. Of course not.

I remember him constantly talking about the information super-highway way back before most people knew what it even could be.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing your hatred to blind your minds. Hasn't this sort of nonsense done enough damage? After giving us Bush, I would think that you might have learned something.

I can understand not liking a candidate, but these constant denials of basic truth are just too much to believe.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, well, seeing as it is called the Nobel PEACE Prize, it would be rather difficult to deduce why any conservative in the memorable past would deserve one.

George Bush I should have gotten one for leading a world-wide coalition of forces to put down a murderous dictator bent on conquest.

But no, I agree that the Nobel committee wouldn't give one to a conservative. The concept that peace sometimes has to be achieved through force is beyond their comprehension.

 

[russ_watters]

What a fallacious argument you are trying to make here...

"The Webbys...

Interesting choice of counterpoint.

 

[slugcountry]

George Bush I should have gotten one for leading a world-wide coalition of forces to put down a murderous dictator bent on conquest.

But no, I agree that the Nobel committee wouldn't give one to a conservative. The concept that peace sometimes has to be achieved through force is beyond their comprehension.

haha yeahhhhhhhhh good going very on message - the concept of PEACE seems to be beyond YOUR comprehension...

by your own logic would clinton then deserve one for stopping a genocide in serbia??

 

[russ_watters]

Very sad.

Pathetic, really.

 

[slugcountry]

Interesting choice of counterpoint.

ok - I'm sorry that you look down on some humor now and then - care to disprove the rest of the article? not that you would let historical record stand in your way of course...

 

[russ_watters]

The people who invented the internet give Gore credit, but that's not good enough for our nay-sayers. Of course not.

I remember him constantly talking about the information super-highway way back before most people knew what it even could be.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing your hatred to blind your minds. Hasn't this sort of nonsense done enough damage? After giving us Bush, I would think that you might have learned something.

I can understand not liking a candidate, but these constant denials of basic truth are just too much to believe.

It is a crazy world we live in where someone who gives a speech about something gets credit right up there with people who actually did something. [that goes for both issues]

If you break it down, Gore basically won a Nobel Prize for making a movie about another guy who won a Nobel Prize.

And for the record, I don't hate Gore, I only mildy dislike him. Bhillary, on the other hand, I loathe.

[edit] Btw, this is a reflection of a difference betwen liberals and conservatives. Conservatives, being for limited government, don't tend to give government credit for much of anything, whether it be the spectacularly good economy of the past 20 years or the development of the internet. Liberals give credit to their favorite politician - so Gore gets credit for the internet, Clinton gets credit for the economy of the mid-90s (and no blame for the crash that happened before he left office), and Bush gets no credit for the great economy of today. For me to actually give someone credit for something, they actually have to do something.

 

[slugcountry]

It is a crazy world we live in where someone who gives a speech about something gets credit right up there with people who actually did something.

... yeah, he didn't do ANYTHING by bringing their work into the public eye...

 

[russ_watters]

ok - I'm sorry that you look down on some humor now and then - care to disprove the rest of the article? not that you would let historical record stand in your way of course...

I think you missed my point. A Berkeley liberal gave Gore an award. How shocking is that?

Anyway, there are plenty of idiocies in that article. Let's start with the first two sentences:

Campbell-Kelly and Aspray note in Chapter 12 of their 1996 text, Computer: A History of the Information Machine, that up until the early 1990s public usage of the Internet was limited. They continue to state that the "problem of giving ordinary Americans network access had exercised Senator Al Gore since the late 1970s" leading him to develop legislation which would alleviate this problem.

Considering that the IBM PC came out in 1981 and market penetration didn't really get huge for another 5 years, there wasn't enough public to access the internet in the late 1970s. As the article points out, Gore sponsored or voted for a lot of technology-related bills. So it isn't surprising, nor is it terribly interesting, that he took part in the funding for the development of the internet.

[edit] In 1981, Bill Gates was saying no one would ever need more than 640K of ram and no one outside of Xerox PARC had ever heard of a GUI - yet somehow Gore knew the WWW was coming? C'mon, are you guys being serious? You're pulling my chain, right?

 

[russ_watters]

... yeah, he didn't do ANYTHING by bringing their work into the public eye...

I never said he didn't. What I said was that popularizing work isn't the same as doing work.

Heck, Bono would be a much, much better choice than Gore. Bono doesn't just give speeches, he does things. He sits down with the President and then the President changes policy. Giving Gore the peace prize here is laughable. It makes me wonder if they considered giving it to Michael Moore. Perhaps they figured too many people would laugh at them if they did.

 

[vanesch]

Personally, I'm a bit disturbed by a Nobel for human induced climate change as of now. One cannot really say that the scientific case for the issue is closed. There is suggestive data, but the modeling and the internal inconsistencies are to my taste still too big to consider it a proven fact beyond doubt.

Of course, that can be sufficient to be cautious, and maybe it will turn out to be right. But maybe not. Nobel prizes are usually only given to scientific discoveries beyond doubt, based upon experimental work. One cannot claim that climate research and the claims of human induced climate change have as of now reached that state. Some people have to wait 30 years for their Nobel, until their discovery was clearly (with hindsight) a major breakthrough. This can really not be said (yet) of current climate research. It could be true, but it could also be a lot of hot air To be scientifically sure would take at least 2 or 3 more decades. So why the hurry ?

 

[Evo]

Vinton Cerf and Bob Kahn both acknowledge Gore's role in funding the government programs (ARPAnet, part of DARPA) that created the internet. It had nothing to do with "private business"

It had everything to do with "private business", AT&T and several other corporations were very involved in developing this with the DOD.

and when the National Science Foundation (NSF) controlled the backbones it was called the "internet."

Wrong again.

In 1986, a higher-speed network, subsidized by the National Science Foundation (NSF), called NSFNET replaced ARPANET.

In 1988, the NSF decided NSFNET would no longer carry commercial traffic. They hoped this move would stimulate the creation of commercial networks such as PSI, UUNET and ANS. In 1995, NSFNET lost its funding. Today the Internet is supported entirely by commercial backbone providers.

As Veltman points out, the AT&T Bell Labs did some of the first digital transmission and switching in 1962, seven years before the "US Internet" began. When the Department of Defense (DoD) commissioned the Advanced Research Project Agency's Network (ARPANET) to do research into networking, it was AT&T that provided 50kbps lines. In 1969, the year that Arpanet began, AT&T's Bell Labs developed Unix which was "the operating system behind the early Internet, and was one of the key operating systems in the middle and late ARPANET."

Between 1969 and 1972, Bell Labs developed the C programming language basic to much of Internet software. In 1970, AT&T installed the first cross-country link between the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) and Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) in Boston. In 1976, AT&T's Bell Labs developed (Unix-to-Unix Copy (UUCP), which was distributed with UNIX one year later."

All of these were important points of origin of the Internet as we know it, so the telco theory, unpopular as it is in Internet circles, should perhaps be explored in more detail. Certainly the physical infrastructure created by the telcos was central, and certainly telcos had worked out protocols for sending voice data between disparate networks early in the piece. In the examples above, they added the component of computers and networked them. Can we completely eliminate the telco origins and contributions to early developments?

http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/69internet.html

1969 will forever be remembered as the year of the "Miracle Mets" and Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon. But, as the Internet's influence continues to grow, maybe 1969 will come to be known as the "Year of the Internet" since it was 1969 that the Internet was launched. The development of the Internet has close ties to the UNIX operating system, which was developed at AT&T Labs. The Internet itself would not exist if it were not for AT&T's telecommunications network, the electronic gateway that connects you to the rest of the world.

Over the past 30 years, AT&T Labs has made many contributions to the development of the Internet and to computer software. Among the programming languages developed at AT&T Labs are C and C++.

http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/69internet.html

Furthermore, it used to be called the "information super highway," when business took it over, it became more about e-commerce rather than information sharing.

No, that was a goofy name that was coined that didn't last very long, *we* did not call it that.

 

[Hurkyl]

unfortunately, if one doesn't go down that path, one cannot make a persuasive argment.

If the truth is not persuasive, then you have no business making an argument.

the repercussion of the British court ruling may now mean that ppl will dismiss the entire film (again this is due to not everyone has the clear thinking you may have), and not just those handful of opinions turned facts. (ie. bad for the symbolism)

Well, there you go. Even if you do decide to take an unscrupulous route, we see that there is a very good reason not to lie.

 

[Art]

First off I'd like to say I currently have no opinion on whether or not Gore made a meaningful contribution to the internet and seeing as how most of this thread is taken up with 'yes he did' 'no he didn't' I still am no wiser.

Surely it shouldn't be hard for those supporting the contention to provide evidence of actual contributions he made and then perhaps the discussion can centre on how meaningful these contributions were.

 

[Art]

Gees I know they have some natsy storms up there but this storm would have had to last for a month.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece

From your article

The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days later after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. “We estimate that of the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds,” said the report.

No drownings have been reported prior to this event or subsequently and why assume more drowned than the 4 observed?? Is there a rationale for this pure speculation?? Does baseless, random, idle speculation from 'environmentalists' constitute scientific proof in your opinion??

If you have 10 close friends and 2 die in a car accident is it then reasonable from this sample to extrapolate 20% of the population of the world will die in car accidents??

One data point does not a trend make.

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.

 

[Evo]

He sponsored the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 along with 24 other senators http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:SN00272:@@@P

I'd have to agree that he has a long record of pushing environmental protection issues. Although, I think he's gone over the edge the past couple of years.

But then there's his resolution to establish the month of October, 1991, as "Country Music Month".

 

[Astronuc]

They were just being pc to try to get Gore's foot out of his mouth, if you knew about the growth of the internet, you would know that. He did nothing to encourage businesses taking over the internet. You *do* know what the internet is, right? I was working with it at AT&T in 1973, before it was called the internet. (want to make clear, I was not working on the internet project, I was in data networking for them)

I suppose one could go back even further. In 1968, I did a course in programming (primarily BASIC) and we used a teletype to a computer in another city. We had to use a dialup modem, place the phone in cradle. How far back does teletyping go?

 

[Evo]

I suppose one could go back even further. In 1968, I did a course in programming (primarily BASIC) and we used a teletype to a computer in another city. We had to use a dialup modem, place the phone in cradle. How far back does teletyping go?

They go WAY back, according to wiki, they went into general use around 1922. I remember pulling news copy off the teletype machine when I worked at the radio station.

 

[edward]

So where do polar bears typically die? If the carcasses were found on land, would they have said they died from walking too much? Seriously, with as much body fat as polar bears have, is it even possible for them to drown?

Yes they do drown. Usually exhaustion is the underlying cause. As far as I know they die at whatever location they happen to be when they become to weak to hunt or swim.

SCIENTISTS have for the first time found evidence that polar bears are drowning because climate change is melting the Arctic ice shelf.
The researchers were startled to find bears having to swim up to 60 miles across open sea to find food. They are being forced into the long voyages because the ice floes from which they feed are melting, becoming smaller and drifting farther apart.

Although polar bears are strong swimmers, they are adapted for swimming close to the shore. Their sea journeys leave them them vulnerable to exhaustion, hypothermia or being swamped by waves.

 

[sneez]

vanesh

Personally, I'm a bit disturbed by a Nobel for human induced climate change as of now. One cannot really say that the scientific case for the issue is closed.

Exactly, and now its another form of political support, how unscientific. It purports already distorted "religious view of the topic" that researching otherwise and reporting results that do not support this hypothesis are somehow against science/planet/life/blahbalh.

Plus the fact that Gore is as much scientists as bush is politician (uups, I had to :D)

 

[slugcountry]

Surely it shouldn't be hard for those supporting the contention to provide evidence of actual contributions he made and then perhaps the discussion can centre on how meaningful these contributions were.

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.