Thoughts on Al Gore's work?

[Jed K]

An inconvenient truth or a convenient lie?

No doubt Al Gore has done a lot for global warming awareness around the world; however, do you think he was the best candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007? If not, who should have taken it instead? Also, how about An Inconvenient Truth? Were his motives pure or was it all political propaganda? Did it deserve the Oscar for best documentary?

Lastly, do you think his efforts have really made much of a difference? Unfortunately, many people become moved by such information, yet rarely do they make significant lifestyle changes. When they do, they're usually just temporary.

Thoughts? I'm merely posing the questions (for now).

[Jeff]

I believe that Al Gore honestly believes the material in 'An Inconvenient Truth', but I think his belief is so strong that he is unwilling to listen to scientists that completely disagree. He claims that there is consensus but we keep hearing scientists claim that it is very probable that what we are experiencing is cyclic and not man-made. So I think the debate should continue and even Al Gore should not discount scientists that disagree with his conclusion.

I don't believe that his work was Nobel Peace Prize worthy, but to be honest I don't know someone else who should have received it. I just know that making a documentary that may not be true certainly shouldn't be grounds for the Noble Peace Prize. Maybe he should have gotten an award from Hollywood for making a good documentary, but the Nobel Peace Prize. That just seems silly.

[jakeruston]

Well theres no doubt that Al Gore is making a positive contribution, but I do think that sometimes he's taking things too far.

You're all forgetting that it isn't all human's fault for Global Warming, its going to happen anyway.

[Taopoet]

First, as for Global Warming being inevitable regardless of human intervention, it’s widely accepted that there’s consensus among scientists that climate change is not only happening, but is attributable to human activity since the rise of the industrial revolution.

http://news.smh.com.au/climate-change-de...-28cg.html Yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald gives a brief but on-the-mark summary of the distinctions between the “vast body of scientific knowledge and analysis” and “the dissemination of disinformation, doubt and unscientific nonsense.”

More discussion on true science vs. policy-driven pseudo-science can be found here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/...26189.htm:
“Groups with vested interests in business-as-usual (such as tobacco spokespeople or fossil fuel lobbyists) will attempt to push so-called 'scientific evidence' to support their claims. In fact they are at best drawing selectively on a small part of the evidence, or at worst relying on 'junk' science - that is, outdated, discredited or fabricated data and ideas.”

and here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/36...paed.html:
“60 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency scientists surveyed -- 889, to be precise -- reported political pressure to skew their findings.”

I’ve been Al Gore’s self-described biggest fan since the early ‘90s, when I read Earth in the Balance. My battered first edition paperback is by Senator Al Gore, who grabbed my attention with his description of his 1987 run for the Democratic nomination: “In fact, one of the main reasons I ran was to try to elevate the importance of the [Global Warming] crisis as a political issue.”

Gore is an intelligent, dedicated man who cares as much about the environment we live in, and the planet we live on, as he does about himself. He makes that clear in his environmental works, and its strength can be felt in the staid passion with which he strives to share the news that we can understand how we’ve impacted the environment and change our ways to live in better harmony with the planet and minimize our impact. We’re beginning to see emphasis and growth in alternative energy sources like wind and solar, and even major oil-fuel providers like BP and Chevron are advertising their R&D in alternative fuel sources.

I’ve seen outstanding strides in municipal environmentalism in recent years. Recycling is a great example of this. Many homes have curbside pickup, airports and other public places have bins for trash sorting, and discarded plastic bottles are turned into polar fleece clothes.

Is this because of Al Gore? Did he single-handedly inform the citizens of the world that we have to pay attention to our carbon footprint? No. And he didn’t invent the internet, either.

But he has devoted a great deal of time and energy, channeling his fame (or notoriety) into attention to his books, film, and extensively traveled lecture series. Prior to his Nobel prize, he drove the environmental agenda to the forefront of American minds. His work – along with the work of fellow Nobel laureates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch) – has truly made significant differences through "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." Ecological mindfulness is mainstream now, and that's a major shift in public consciousness and behavior.

In my exceedingly humble opinion, the Honorable Al Gore is a champion for humanity, deserving of even more attention and respect than he currently receives.

More sources regarding political pressure placed upon scientists to “dumb down” their findings on climate change:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environme...9320080424
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/washin...ref=slogin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1162