Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

[GaryC 7]

I get it, his home in TN needed work to be green. He's done a helluva a lot more for our country & the world. I hate that what should be a celebration for a Yank winning a very important prize is a mudslinging thing. And now the Nobel Prize means nothing. That is the most laughable of all. Sour grapes anyone

I actually wondered when someone might mention his work over so many years and am also amazed at the response to an American winning this.

Actually he wasn't awarded it for the movie but for raising awarenss of the issue ......... which I guess this thread proves he certainly has ....... and if anyone thinks it isn't an issue involving peace issues then they really have got the music too loud in their gas guzzling SUV's

Exactly. Sour grapes.

It's absolutely NOT sour grapes...that's what you're missing.

Whether it was for all his work previously or not....obviously the catalyst was this movie. Cos if not, why on Earth didn't he win 2 years ago?

You shouldn't be able to win a nobel prize for something that you don't practice yourself.

Do you not feel slightly embarassed by what seems to be the prevailing tactic of some people on the Right to Swiftboat anybody who they don't like? With everyone they go after, the argument isn't over just one angle, but several angles full of heresay, half truths and all out lies as if the collective total puts enough doubt in people's mind that ths person has absolutely nothing legitimate to say about any issue. It's really pathetic when look at the long list of people that have been dismissed this way...

Ted Kennedy

Nancy Pelosi

Bill and Hillary Clinton

Al Gore

Michael Moore

Jimmy Carter

John Kerry

Graeme Frost and his family

Cindy Sheehan

...basically anyone who is too liberal for your tastes.

I get that you don't like them for their political views, but it really shows a lack of character, IMO, that instead of arguing on the merits of what they have said, you attack the person themselves. There are plenty of people on the Right who I dislike (as well as some on that list above), but imagine for once, like the example I brought up of Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution, the ability to separate the message from the messenger. It would do this country a whole lot of good if we all tried that instead of turning it in to a sh!t throwing contest.

So you don't like Al Gore, fine. You don't think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, fine. You don't think his documentary is accurate, fine. Now try to articulate that without it being about who Al Gore is. Just try it for once. You might start to feel better.

But all those people really are idiots!

But how about all the people on the right that have been smeared? I could easily make a list just as long. Don't you feel the slightest bit embarrassed for that?

Even fools are capable of saying something wise. I think we can separate poking fun of public figures from totally dismissing anything that comes out of their mouths. There is a difference, Gary. It just gets old when as soon as someone like Al Gore is in the news, it's a sh!t fest of the same ol' rhetoric - he's a bloody hypocrite, he said he invented the internet...yada, yada, yada. If Ted Kennedy speaks out on child healthcare, it gets reduced down to jokes about his alleged murder/drowning of a woman. I get that you don't like their politics, but honestly, try to actually argue about the merits of what they've said rather than attack the integrity of character. Obviously people are flawed...some of them to the core...but like it has been said, even a fool is capable of saying something wise. Try to remember that.

Have you been reading the thread? Everything I have written about AlGore has been about his positions and his actions. None of it has been poking fun at him. If pointing out the truth is smearing then you have re-defined the word. Are you saying that whenever he gets brought up we should just remain silent and let the false claims go unchallenged? You can't have it both ways Steven.

[GaryC 7]

Global warming is a fact and if he painted over that fact to bring it to the masses's attention, I think it's reason enough to win the NOBEL prize. I am not sure if the movie in itself is the sole reason for his winning the prize, but he's been working on the Global Warming problem appart from the movie.

Also, I agree with AOS despair 'cus even if there are things in the movie that are not fact, it's a movie about scientific opinion that Global Warming is happening and can cause bad consequences to the planet as we know it. We all feel it. I don't remember El Niño effects when I was a child, my town used to be VERY cold and each year I noticed winter is shorter and less cold, and the list goes on and on.

The thing is, as always, when watching a documentary, reading news, etc., you can't take it all in as fact, it's almost impossible to be impartial as there's always someone to talk about the other side, to give a different opinion. The same way we can't take Gore's documentary as all truth, we can't take the other news reports that Gore's documentary is all #######.

You see, that is not true. Man made Global warming is a theory and is far from proven. But I will restate my position. Raising awareness for GW isn't a basis for a PEACE PRIZE. It's like giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes.

Yes, it is a basis for a peace prize. There isn't a slipping standard, it's just that the standard has always been something involving international cooperation for a peaceful achievement. Two thousand international scientists and one activist count. So does a nun bathing poor people. So did the founder of the Red Cross. Actually if you look at most of the winners, they weren't negotiating peace treaties but doing good things, peacefully. And if you look at many of them, their legacy wasn't always 100% perfect; the Nobel Peace Prize tends to be about what someone is doing now, even if years later their work fails. Several people have won Nobels for working toward peace in Palestine...

And if you think that rising temperatures and struggles over resources (and outside of a handful of scientists and this administration, everyone agrees man-made activities are contributing to it, even if they quibble about the details) are not going to precipitate any political crises, you're just not thinking it through.

The Nobel committee's always had a lot of flexibility, anyway, because there are only five prizes. Did you see the movie A Beautiful Mind? About the schizophrenic mathematician John Nash? He was a pure mathematician. There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. But his work precipitated a whole field in economics. Nash never worked in economics. He didn't do all that much further work in game theory. He was too busy being insane. But the economics prize was his.

Did you protest that one, too, Gary?

I disagree with that one also. But it does come closer because there is a connection between math and economics. Raising awareness of GW has no connection to a Peace Prize though. Give him an environmental prize if you want. That I wouldn't argue with but the Peace Prize has nothing to to with GW.

Why?

Its not beyond the realm of possibility that a person can discover something by accident, or that has application beyond their initial sphere of expertise. What is wrong with that?

In 1994 he received the Nobel Prize in Economics as a result of his game theory work as a Princeton graduate student. In the late 1980s, Nash had begun to use electronic mail to gradually link with working mathematicians who realized that he was "John Nash" and that his new work had value. They formed part of the nucleus of a group that contacted the Bank of Sweden's Nobel award committee and were able to vouch for Nash's ability to receive the award in recognition of his early work.

Nash's recent work involves ventures in advanced game theory including partial agency which show that, as in his early career, he prefers to select his own path and problems. Between 1945 and 1996, he published twenty-three scientific studies.

As I said, it does come closer because there is a connection between math and economics. Plus Nash came up with his work on his own and didn't just take other peoples work and reiterate it. But that is digressing. There is no connection between raising awareness of GW and a Peace Prize.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This isn't about whether the movie was partisan or not. It's about whether the information is scientific or just hysteria.

Well, Gary, not sure if it's been brought to light here yet - haven't read the whole threat - but the same judge that pointed out the few factual inaccuracies also ruled that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact". That should then answer the "real" question you posed: It's not just hysteria. But I'm sure that you have issue with that part of the same judge's finding.

We're still at the beginning stages of this issue. I mean, there's been about as much denial about the effect of CFC's on the ozone layer some time back. Today, we all know that the "alarmists" back then had it right and the deniers had it wrong. Some things never change. It just takes some people longer to understand and/or accept new concepts than others.

We have two separate issues here. One is whether GW is man made (which is OT) and the other is whether raising awareness in GW rates a Peace Prize. I will focus on the OT. Raising awareness isn't in the preview of a Peace Prize. Awarding AlGore the prize amounts to a political award and not what the intent of Mr Nobel had when he founded the prize. As I said before, to award Gore the prize is the same as giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes. There is no connection.

That's a fair argument to make, Gary, and I have no qualms about that. My response was related to LisaD's claim that because Al Gore doesn't 'walk the walk' he can't 'talk the talk'. That's a separate issue, I know, but worth challenging since she often dismisses most people as being hypocritical and therefore incapable of saying anything legitimate.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Have you been reading the thread? Everything I have written about AlGore has been about his positions and his actions. None of it has been poking fun at him. If pointing out the truth is smearing then you have re-defined the word. Are you saying that whenever he gets brought up we should just remain silent and let the false claims go unchallenged? You can't have it both ways Steven.

While what Al Gore does or doesn't do in his personal life to reduce his carbon footprint may make him seem hypocritical, it doesn't negate the legitimacy of his documentary. Anyone who has seen the documentary should understand that point.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Global warming is a fact and if he painted over that fact to bring it to the masses's attention, I think it's reason enough to win the NOBEL prize. I am not sure if the movie in itself is the sole reason for his winning the prize, but he's been working on the Global Warming problem appart from the movie.

Also, I agree with AOS despair 'cus even if there are things in the movie that are not fact, it's a movie about scientific opinion that Global Warming is happening and can cause bad consequences to the planet as we know it. We all feel it. I don't remember El Niño effects when I was a child, my town used to be VERY cold and each year I noticed winter is shorter and less cold, and the list goes on and on.

The thing is, as always, when watching a documentary, reading news, etc., you can't take it all in as fact, it's almost impossible to be impartial as there's always someone to talk about the other side, to give a different opinion. The same way we can't take Gore's documentary as all truth, we can't take the other news reports that Gore's documentary is all #######.

You see, that is not true. Man made Global warming is a theory and is far from proven. But I will restate my position. Raising awareness for GW isn't a basis for a PEACE PRIZE. It's like giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes.

Yes, it is a basis for a peace prize. There isn't a slipping standard, it's just that the standard has always been something involving international cooperation for a peaceful achievement. Two thousand international scientists and one activist count. So does a nun bathing poor people. So did the founder of the Red Cross. Actually if you look at most of the winners, they weren't negotiating peace treaties but doing good things, peacefully. And if you look at many of them, their legacy wasn't always 100% perfect; the Nobel Peace Prize tends to be about what someone is doing now, even if years later their work fails. Several people have won Nobels for working toward peace in Palestine...

And if you think that rising temperatures and struggles over resources (and outside of a handful of scientists and this administration, everyone agrees man-made activities are contributing to it, even if they quibble about the details) are not going to precipitate any political crises, you're just not thinking it through.

The Nobel committee's always had a lot of flexibility, anyway, because there are only five prizes. Did you see the movie A Beautiful Mind? About the schizophrenic mathematician John Nash? He was a pure mathematician. There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. But his work precipitated a whole field in economics. Nash never worked in economics. He didn't do all that much further work in game theory. He was too busy being insane. But the economics prize was his.

Did you protest that one, too, Gary?

I disagree with that one also. But it does come closer because there is a connection between math and economics. Raising awareness of GW has no connection to a Peace Prize though. Give him an environmental prize if you want. That I wouldn't argue with but the Peace Prize has nothing to to with GW.

Why?

Its not beyond the realm of possibility that a person can discover something by accident, or that has application beyond their initial sphere of expertise. What is wrong with that?

In 1994 he received the Nobel Prize in Economics as a result of his game theory work as a Princeton graduate student. In the late 1980s, Nash had begun to use electronic mail to gradually link with working mathematicians who realized that he was "John Nash" and that his new work had value. They formed part of the nucleus of a group that contacted the Bank of Sweden's Nobel award committee and were able to vouch for Nash's ability to receive the award in recognition of his early work.

Nash's recent work involves ventures in advanced game theory including partial agency which show that, as in his early career, he prefers to select his own path and problems. Between 1945 and 1996, he published twenty-three scientific studies.

As I said, it does come closer because there is a connection between math and economics. Plus Nash came up with his work on his own and didn't just take other peoples work and reiterate it. But that is digressing. There is no connection between raising awareness of GW and a Peace Prize.

Sure - but you said you disagree with it. I just don't understand why.

Did you say 'no' as a kneejerk reaction before you knew about what Nash had actually done - or did you say 'no' having some knowledge of Nash's work and its application in other areas?

[GaryC 7]

Global warming is a fact and if he painted over that fact to bring it to the masses's attention, I think it's reason enough to win the NOBEL prize. I am not sure if the movie in itself is the sole reason for his winning the prize, but he's been working on the Global Warming problem appart from the movie.

Also, I agree with AOS despair 'cus even if there are things in the movie that are not fact, it's a movie about scientific opinion that Global Warming is happening and can cause bad consequences to the planet as we know it. We all feel it. I don't remember El Niño effects when I was a child, my town used to be VERY cold and each year I noticed winter is shorter and less cold, and the list goes on and on.

The thing is, as always, when watching a documentary, reading news, etc., you can't take it all in as fact, it's almost impossible to be impartial as there's always someone to talk about the other side, to give a different opinion. The same way we can't take Gore's documentary as all truth, we can't take the other news reports that Gore's documentary is all #######.

You see, that is not true. Man made Global warming is a theory and is far from proven. But I will restate my position. Raising awareness for GW isn't a basis for a PEACE PRIZE. It's like giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes.

Yes, it is a basis for a peace prize. There isn't a slipping standard, it's just that the standard has always been something involving international cooperation for a peaceful achievement. Two thousand international scientists and one activist count. So does a nun bathing poor people. So did the founder of the Red Cross. Actually if you look at most of the winners, they weren't negotiating peace treaties but doing good things, peacefully. And if you look at many of them, their legacy wasn't always 100% perfect; the Nobel Peace Prize tends to be about what someone is doing now, even if years later their work fails. Several people have won Nobels for working toward peace in Palestine...

And if you think that rising temperatures and struggles over resources (and outside of a handful of scientists and this administration, everyone agrees man-made activities are contributing to it, even if they quibble about the details) are not going to precipitate any political crises, you're just not thinking it through.

The Nobel committee's always had a lot of flexibility, anyway, because there are only five prizes. Did you see the movie A Beautiful Mind? About the schizophrenic mathematician John Nash? He was a pure mathematician. There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. But his work precipitated a whole field in economics. Nash never worked in economics. He didn't do all that much further work in game theory. He was too busy being insane. But the economics prize was his.

Did you protest that one, too, Gary?

I disagree with that one also. But it does come closer because there is a connection between math and economics. Raising awareness of GW has no connection to a Peace Prize though. Give him an environmental prize if you want. That I wouldn't argue with but the Peace Prize has nothing to to with GW.

Why?

Its not beyond the realm of possibility that a person can discover something by accident, or that has application beyond their initial sphere of expertise. What is wrong with that?

In 1994 he received the Nobel Prize in Economics as a result of his game theory work as a Princeton graduate student. In the late 1980s, Nash had begun to use electronic mail to gradually link with working mathematicians who realized that he was "John Nash" and that his new work had value. They formed part of the nucleus of a group that contacted the Bank of Sweden's Nobel award committee and were able to vouch for Nash's ability to receive the award in recognition of his early work.

Nash's recent work involves ventures in advanced game theory including partial agency which show that, as in his early career, he prefers to select his own path and problems. Between 1945 and 1996, he published twenty-three scientific studies.

As I said, it does come closer because there is a connection between math and economics. Plus Nash came up with his work on his own and didn't just take other peoples work and reiterate it. But that is digressing. There is no connection between raising awareness of GW and a Peace Prize.

Sure - but you said you disagree with it. I just don't understand why.

Did you say 'no' as a kneejerk reaction before you knew about what Nash had actually done - or did you say 'no' having some knowledge of Nash's work and its application in other areas?

It was a conditional no. While it doesn't strictly fall under the category of economics and for that reason I said no I could see the rational for awarding it to him. I feel the awards should remain the way Mr. Nobel originally intended them to be. To start to stray from that original intent gives you things like AlGore given a prize for something that has nothing at all to do with Peace. If this keeps up then the prize will mean nothing and we lose a real honor to bestow upon people that really deserve it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It wasn't just Al Gore who won... you're forgetting the IPCC. I think they were both deserving of the award.

[GaryC 7]

It wasn't just Al Gore who won... you're forgetting the IPCC. I think they were both deserving of the award.

But what does that have to do with Peace? That is my whole point. If you want to honor them then start a prize for environmental advances. But the Peace Prize isn't the appropriate award to give.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Global warming is a fact and if he painted over that fact to bring it to the masses's attention, I think it's reason enough to win the NOBEL prize. I am not sure if the movie in itself is the sole reason for his winning the prize, but he's been working on the Global Warming problem appart from the movie.

Also, I agree with AOS despair 'cus even if there are things in the movie that are not fact, it's a movie about scientific opinion that Global Warming is happening and can cause bad consequences to the planet as we know it. We all feel it. I don't remember El Niño effects when I was a child, my town used to be VERY cold and each year I noticed winter is shorter and less cold, and the list goes on and on.

The thing is, as always, when watching a documentary, reading news, etc., you can't take it all in as fact, it's almost impossible to be impartial as there's always someone to talk about the other side, to give a different opinion. The same way we can't take Gore's documentary as all truth, we can't take the other news reports that Gore's documentary is all #######.

You see, that is not true. Man made Global warming is a theory and is far from proven. But I will restate my position. Raising awareness for GW isn't a basis for a PEACE PRIZE. It's like giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes.

Yes, it is a basis for a peace prize. There isn't a slipping standard, it's just that the standard has always been something involving international cooperation for a peaceful achievement. Two thousand international scientists and one activist count. So does a nun bathing poor people. So did the founder of the Red Cross. Actually if you look at most of the winners, they weren't negotiating peace treaties but doing good things, peacefully. And if you look at many of them, their legacy wasn't always 100% perfect; the Nobel Peace Prize tends to be about what someone is doing now, even if years later their work fails. Several people have won Nobels for working toward peace in Palestine...

And if you think that rising temperatures and struggles over resources (and outside of a handful of scientists and this administration, everyone agrees man-made activities are contributing to it, even if they quibble about the details) are not going to precipitate any political crises, you're just not thinking it through.

The Nobel committee's always had a lot of flexibility, anyway, because there are only five prizes. Did you see the movie A Beautiful Mind? About the schizophrenic mathematician John Nash? He was a pure mathematician. There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. But his work precipitated a whole field in economics. Nash never worked in economics. He didn't do all that much further work in game theory. He was too busy being insane. But the economics prize was his.

Did you protest that one, too, Gary?

I disagree with that one also. But it does come closer because there is a connection between math and economics. Raising awareness of GW has no connection to a Peace Prize though. Give him an environmental prize if you want. That I wouldn't argue with but the Peace Prize has nothing to to with GW.

Why?

Its not beyond the realm of possibility that a person can discover something by accident, or that has application beyond their initial sphere of expertise. What is wrong with that?

In 1994 he received the Nobel Prize in Economics as a result of his game theory work as a Princeton graduate student. In the late 1980s, Nash had begun to use electronic mail to gradually link with working mathematicians who realized that he was "John Nash" and that his new work had value. They formed part of the nucleus of a group that contacted the Bank of Sweden's Nobel award committee and were able to vouch for Nash's ability to receive the award in recognition of his early work.

Nash's recent work involves ventures in advanced game theory including partial agency which show that, as in his early career, he prefers to select his own path and problems. Between 1945 and 1996, he published twenty-three scientific studies.

As I said, it does come closer because there is a connection between math and economics. Plus Nash came up with his work on his own and didn't just take other peoples work and reiterate it. But that is digressing. There is no connection between raising awareness of GW and a Peace Prize.

Sure - but you said you disagree with it. I just don't understand why.

Did you say 'no' as a kneejerk reaction before you knew about what Nash had actually done - or did you say 'no' having some knowledge of Nash's work and its application in other areas?

It was a conditional no. While it doesn't strictly fall under the category of economics and for that reason I said no I could see the rational for awarding it to him. I feel the awards should remain the way Mr. Nobel originally intended them to be. To start to stray from that original intent gives you things like AlGore given a prize for something that has nothing at all to do with Peace. If this keeps up then the prize will mean nothing and we lose a real honor to bestow upon people that really deserve it.

But Gary - the Peace Prize has ALWAYS been controversial. You can pick apart the cases of many of the winners dating back to 1900 if you were really so inclined.

Same is true of the prize in literature, take a look at the history of that.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Number 6

[GaryC 7]

But Gary - the Peace Prize has ALWAYS been controversial. You can pick apart the cases of many of the winners dating back to 1900 if you were really so inclined.

None to my knowledge have gone this far off the farm. The others have at least had some connection to reducing wars or promoting peace. This has no connection at all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But Gary - the Peace Prize has ALWAYS been controversial. You can pick apart the cases of many of the winners dating back to 1900 if you were really so inclined.

None to my knowledge have gone this far off the farm. The others have at least had some connection to reducing wars or promoting peace. This has no connection at all.

Sure - which is why Mahatma Gandhi and the last pope were notably omitted.

[GaryC 7]

But Gary - the Peace Prize has ALWAYS been controversial. You can pick apart the cases of many of the winners dating back to 1900 if you were really so inclined.

None to my knowledge have gone this far off the farm. The others have at least had some connection to reducing wars or promoting peace. This has no connection at all.

Sure - which is why Mahatma Gandhi and the last pope were notably omitted.

Forgive my ignorance, Did Gandhi and John Paul II get the award? IMO those people are what the award was founded for, not "raising GW awareness".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It wasn't just Al Gore who won... you're forgetting the IPCC. I think they were both deserving of the award.

But what does that have to do with Peace? That is my whole point. If you want to honor them then start a prize for environmental advances. But the Peace Prize isn't the appropriate award to give.

That doesn't jive with who has won in the past...

2006

The prize goes to:

MUHAMMAD YUNUS and GRAMEEN BANK for their efforts to create economic and social development from below.

.....

2005

The prize was awarded jointly to:

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY and MOHAMED ELBARADEI for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.

....

1970

NORMAN BORLAUG , Led research at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico City.

....

1969

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION (I.L.O.) Geneva.

....

1965

UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN'S FUND (UNICEF) New York, founded by U.N. in 1946. An international aid organization.

....

1951

LÉON JOUHAUX , France, President of the trade union C.G.T. Force Ouvrière. President of the International Committee of the European Council, Vice President of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, Vice President of the World Federation of Trade Unions, member of the ILO Council, delegate to the UN.

http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

[GaryC 7]

It wasn't just Al Gore who won... you're forgetting the IPCC. I think they were both deserving of the award.

But what does that have to do with Peace? That is my whole point. If you want to honor them then start a prize for environmental advances. But the Peace Prize isn't the appropriate award to give.

That doesn't jive with who has won in the past...

2006

The prize goes to:

MUHAMMAD YUNUS and GRAMEEN BANK for their efforts to create economic and social development from below.

.....

2005

The prize was awarded jointly to:

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY and MOHAMED ELBARADEI for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.

....

1970

NORMAN BORLAUG , Led research at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Mexico City.

....

1969

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION (I.L.O.) Geneva.

....

1965

UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN'S FUND (UNICEF) New York, founded by U.N. in 1946. An international aid organization.

....

1951

LÉON JOUHAUX , France, President of the trade union C.G.T. Force Ouvrière. President of the International Committee of the European Council, Vice President of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, Vice President of the World Federation of Trade Unions, member of the ILO Council, delegate to the UN.

http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

Some of those are just as wrong. So your rational is since we have already gotten away from the intent then we should keep on giving the prize for acts that do not rate them?

BTW most of those do rate. UNICEF, ILO, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY all can say they promoted peace in one way or another. AlGore and GW scientists cannot.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This isn't about whether the movie was partisan or not. It's about whether the information is scientific or just hysteria.

Well, Gary, not sure if it's been brought to light here yet - haven't read the whole threat - but the same judge that pointed out the few factual inaccuracies also ruled that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact". That should then answer the "real" question you posed: It's not just hysteria. But I'm sure that you have issue with that part of the same judge's finding.

We're still at the beginning stages of this issue. I mean, there's been about as much denial about the effect of CFC's on the ozone layer some time back. Today, we all know that the "alarmists" back then had it right and the deniers had it wrong. Some things never change. It just takes some people longer to understand and/or accept new concepts than others.

We have two separate issues here. One is whether GW is man made (which is OT) and the other is whether raising awareness in GW rates a Peace Prize. I will focus on the OT. Raising awareness isn't in the preview of a Peace Prize. Awarding AlGore the prize amounts to a political award and not what the intent of Mr Nobel had when he founded the prize. As I said before, to award Gore the prize is the same as giving an Olympic medal to someone that wrote a book about shoes. There is no connection.

So, since you didn't take issue with that part of the judge's finding, I take it you stipulate that the film is not just hysteria but is in fact founded on scientific research and fact. Good.

Now, what does raising awareness in GW have to do with promoting and/or preserving world peace? GW is something that already impacts millions of people and has the capacity to impact billions more in the not too distant future. We're talking mass migration. We're talking small island nations losing their countries altogether. This sort of thing will raise tensions quickly when those that have been deprived of their land or those who have seen their land become uninhabitable knock on the doors of those that still have inhabitable land to live on. You think the 12 million illegals we deal with in the US is bad? I suspect that if the trends continue the way they are projected, we ain't seen nothing yet.