Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Further proof the Nobel Prize is irrelevant

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by hornet, Oct 13, 2007.

  1. The Peace Prize has been given to Al Gore, in what surely must be the most politically-motivated stunt in the Prize's increasingly shabby history.

  2. ha ha ha......... as if this wasnt so predictable
  3. daam Rev.. you bet me too it. I was going to say something about
    it today :LOL:
  4. And who would you have given it to?
  5. Rev??????
  6. What's predictable awarding it to Al Bore, or hornets reaction???
  7. gorethumbsup.
  8. John Howard of course :).
  9. Thanks twainharte.

    Thats exactly what I was going to respond with..

    2ndly, his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." which earlier this month
    received two two Oscar nominations for best documentary feature and best
    original song has been ruled to contain inaccuracies.

    Its been dismissed publically by the Aussie Gov as well.

    Also note, he has a co-winner with the UN body dealing in climate change.
    Fair enough Al Gore was the public face and did lectures world wide, but
    the unsung heros are the 2500 scientists the IPCN who do the hard yakka.

    Back the Rev post, I cant see how you cannot say its of no merit when
    there was immediate talk of using this as a springboard to get back into

    At least the man has pledged to donate the $A1.6 million prize money to
    an organisation dedicated to tackling climate change.

    I wouldnt have chosen Al Gore, thats for sure. Maybe someone active in
    promoting world peace.

    Afterall isent that what the Nobel PEACE Award used to be all about.

  10. Have you seen the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research website, it reads like George Bush's shopping list.

    So what we are saying is that because the 2 countries who are still only pretending to agree that climate change exists rubbish a case that they disagree with, we should all say oh that's that then and walk away.

    Gore was only a co winner the real winners were the scientists as stated.

    His mansion is 100% carbon credited and in the middle of a program to reduce its emissions further. He may be a cock but he does walk the walk.
  11. Big fcuking deal. He has lots of money, his dwelling/he pollutes like a motherfcuker, but because he has the dosh to "offset" his personal emissions, he can claim to be green.
    Fact is, he's like Bob Brown, lectures about what is right, but shits in his own backyard consistently.
    Let's not even start about the sensationalism and glaring lies in his"documentary".

    Regards Andrew.
  12. The award is a PEACE prize, read my lips. Awarding it to a yankee show-pony who's only interest is his own political career makes about as much sense as awarding the medical prize to a mass-murderer, or the literature prize to a graffiti vandal. What has the Global Warming industry have to do with peace? Will a cooler climate stop the slaughter in Darfur?? Or the murder and torture of Christians and people of other faiths in China, or the persecution of non-Hindus in India? Of course it will :roll:.
  13. I see your point Hornet600. Are you sure that his award was based on his film rather than his political protest of war?

    Does anyone remember when George W Bush was nominated? Now that's a joke! :LOL:
  14. I illuded (sp?) to the same Rev.


    Its no longer just a peace prize Rev.

    Looks like the Norwegian Nobel Committee are changing directions which
    is different to Alfred Nobels last will & testament.

    Peace Prize is now multiple categories (literature, physics, chemistry,
    peace, economics, or physiology & medicine).

    Q is which one is Al Gore's win under? :?
  15. The New York Times does not directly link the mockumentary with the prize in its report http://snipurl.com/1s4a7

    Predictably there has been a vitriolic response in many quarters; Washington Monthly published this a few hours ago:

    Why am I not surprised the left wing Nobel Prize committe gave it to the hypocrite Gore?

    Previous winners of the Nobel Prize
    1994 - terrorist YASSER ARAFAT
    2001 - corrupt thief KOFI ANNAN
    2002 - worst President in American history and appeaser JIMMY CARTER

    If the Nobel Prize Committee really wanted to show it was impartial and fair, it would've given the prize to General Petraeus for his work in political reconciliation in Iraq and especially in Anbar province. But instead they decided to go its normal left wing route by giving it to a chicken little who can't change his jet setting ways.

  16. a peace prize granted to an ex-vice president who is waging a war on global warming. now everyone will believe his side of the story. watch "the great global warming spindle". Interesting points made in it.
  17. Perhaps they are forgetting
    1973 - terrorist and war criminal HENRY KISSINGER

    And it was a load of spin. The maker of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' was interviewed and taken to task over the blatant misrepresentation and outright lies in the content by Lateline presenter Tony Jones.

    Said documentary maker has form for scientific fraud regarding a documentary about AIDS and is known as a Holocaust denier as well.
  18. ^ I agree, but the fact that people have been forcefed the stuff from Al Gore, who then goes on to win the nobel peace prize has me a bit off balance. its like granting the nobel peace prize to america in the 80's because they are a democracy and not to Russia because they are communist. In an arguement between different ideologies, for the nobel peace prize group to choose a side was very bold indeed i thought.
  19. Have you actually heard the Nobel committee's reasoning behind it?

    It makes me lose a lot of faith in mankind when people like this are still wasting our oxygen.
  20. Interesting Paraphrase

    1994 - terrorist YASSER ARAFAT

    The 1994 Prize was actually won by

    1994 - Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat.

    2002 - Jimmy Carter for

    And only the second US president to win it (Strangely enough both Democrats) or is that what the author has a problem with.

    2001 - corrupt thief KOFI ANNAN

    2001 - The United Nations and Secretary-General Kofi Annan. 2 twice Secretary General of the UN. Accused and exonerated by an independent inquiry (Accused by the US while the UN was extremely critical of US foreign policy)

    How could the Prize be given to a General involved in an illegal war? that is opposed by most of the worlds population.