Al Gore accepts Nobel Peace Prize

Interesting, but I thought awarding a "Peace" prize for an environmental undertaking was a bit odd- here's what the Nobelers have to say for themselves...

Anyways, I was rooting for the Monk...

what catagory did they award it to them? and didnt this happen a while back?

He won the main, huge one.

The Nobel Peace Prize folks said:

The award was presented today - his acceptance speech is here.

I was just pondering all the controversy around it and such.

Am I the only one who thinks Al Gore is a little hypocritical? He lives in that gigantic house and flies around a private jet, and then preaches against polluting the atmosphere with those very things. I mean, it's very possible that global warming might be real, but it's being used as a political tool and a money maker just like every disaster in this world. I can think of better people they could give this award to.

I apologize if this offends anybody. I'll gladly remove it if that's the case.

Score!

You sure aren't the only one who thinks Algore is a hypocrite...

That's pretty much what I thought. I didn't want to say it directly earlier, but him getting the award makes the Nobel Peace Prize essentially meaningless. At the same time, I don't want to belittle what Gore's done to make that case. It seems his movie and his work has really mainstreamed global warming- heck he got Bush to finally admit that it's happening.

Sure he looked favorably on certain key facts that helped prove his point and glossed over others. But when your opposition deals entirely in complacency-driven paranoid lies, sometimes you have to stretch the interpretation of facts to prove your point.

But yeah, Gore is somewhat of a hypocrite. He didn't say much when he was VP in the 'roaring 90s' when big cars and SUVs took off. We went from small, efficient cars in the 80s to gas guzzlers. I love these stupid Hollywood people - they heat and cool huge mansions and think that they are making a difference by driving a Toyota Prius. Environmentalism as fashion.

+1

I was going to post something on that line before thinking better of it. *shrugs*

Somebody had to say it. It appears that we were all thinking it to some extent. haha

Huh, well I can't accurately say if he deserved it or not, because the one time I tried to watch An Inconvient Truth, I fell asleep.

Alas...global warming DOES exist, yes, but Al has enough publicity for being a vice and all. I think someone no one ever knew should have gotten it.

My posts on this subject are going to seem very bi-polar but....

I was rooting for the Vietnamese monk that protested against the Communist regimes illegal taking of Buddhist temples and banning of religion. He was jailed multiple times and suffered severe human rights abuses. Definitely a better candidate than Gore, I think.... :(

But again, Gore mainstreamed Global Warming, which has taken us at least one step in the right direction.

It peeves me to no end that climate change is STILL seen as a "partisan issue." Ridiculous. In the (late 70s?) 80s when they found CFCs were eroding the ozone layer, it was a much less tangible problem without really immediate problems associated with it. But still the government was able to recognize the problem and ban them. Now we have an entire system of spineless cowards who wont even speak up that climate change - measurable and immediate - might be more than just a talking point at partisan debates... So yeah, at least Gore is out talking about it and such.

I wasn't paying attention, but I would've rooted for that monk as well. After hearing what he did in defense of liberty, I don't understand why they didn't give the prize to him. He's fought and even been jailed for his principles, and never backed down.

I'm no scientist (and I'm pretty sure there's none here), so I can't comfortably speak about global warming. There's no doubt in my mind that weather patterns are changing in certain parts of the world, though. My opinion on global warming has changed a bit since the last thread we had about it. As stated in my post earlier in this thread, I believe global warming is being used as a political tool, as 9/11 has and other disasters. That's just what most politicians do. Since the issue is so divided, we should look at it from a different angle. We have the technology available to us (or the ability to develop it) that will help make the environment cleaner, and some of it even saves people money. So, why wouldn't we start using more environmentally friendly things? Even though they might be a little more expensive up front, they're energy efficient and would save the consumer money in the long run. I'll use two examples. One of them being something I absolutely love - those amazing new light bulbs. They last 6-9 YEARS and use 40% less power. I put one in this very room 2-3 years ago and I still haven't had to change it. Another example is hybrid vehicles. They're constantly improving and save the consumer gas money.

The new light bulbs that you are using are lasting longer than the ones my family has been using (thus, we're considering to stop using them, since they are not delivering on their promise), and for the casual driver, it can take quite a few years for the price save by way of the reduced use of gasoline of hybrids to overtake the initial price increase over regular car models, so unless you are a taxi driver,a heavy city driver, or plan on keeping your car for quite awhile, when you get a hybrid, you're kind of playing for just the reduced emissions (a worthy cause, but still...).

Really? That's a shame about the light bulbs. They've never given me a problem. Maybe it varies from brand to brand, or something.

I agree about the hybrid thing. I have heard that they're slowly dropping in price, though. Maybe after a couple of years the price will be low enough where the money savings will come in quicker. Especially since gas prices can go higher.

Why not just develop the Hydrogen fuel cell, and ditch Guzzolene all together [with some still being around for classic cars, of course! Gotta have my 'Stangs!]

Hydrogen fuel cells react Hydrogen with Oxygen [Which is a VERY exothermic reaction, if you've ever seen it done], and produce water as the only byproduct. No partially burned hydrocarbons, no worries.

And for those who REALLY can't kick Hydrocarbons, why not use Methane? It's a much simpler Hydrocarbon chain, so it burns cleaner, and it's still very high energy. What's more, is that since Methane is one of the causes [Dang cows can't stop farting], if we could harvest it for fuel that would do quite a bit alone to lessen the effects of greenhouse gasses.

Bah, I get irritated when good technology is wasted or forgotten.

Hydrogen fuel cells might not be economical for the car companies. People may not be interesting in huge price increases in the cost of their automobiles. If it's not economical for the car companies or if it costs them too much money, the they'll stick with what's cheap n' dirty.

I read about hydrogen fuel. Doesn't it require a tank in the trunk?

I remember hearing a few years ago about a electric car, I wonder if that ever came to being.. (and what it's mileage is.)

There was an electric car at one time. I'm not sure about the quality of it, but it sounded cool. It recharged overnight or something. I heard that they were going to bring it back, but haven't seen anything.

super sci- fi suggestion! Magnetic Coils!

What about the Chevrolet Volt concept? Electric motor that can be recharged from some sort of house outlet, and it uses no gasoline (if you don't drive much). Otherwise, a gasoline motor or something like that recharges that battery.

plug and chareg takes to long and wouldnt last long enough; and the second thought, im pretty sure it was implemented and failed (but i dont really know, it DOES sound like a good concenpt)

I think it goes 50 miles on a charge. It sure wouldn't be enough for everyone, but even then the gas mileage would be good. Of course, that's assuming that the technology is feasible and that production wouldn't hang down the auto companies or cost us consumers too much.

*gasp* You mean like a NORMAL car carries gasoline beneath the trunk? Only instead of Guzzolene in the tank, it'd be pressurized Hydrogen. A little more hazardous than gas, granted, but not too much more.

Also, Manny: Hydrogen fuel cells are only non-economical because nobody is putting any research into them over here. If you put research into them, then they start becoming cheaper [Just like classic automobiles powered on good ole guzzolene or Diesel back in the late 19th and early 20th century.]

Would it be pricier to begin with? Yes. Would it remain pricey? No. Would it be worth it in the long run? Feth yes! Even if you for some reason don't believe in global warming, I'm certain you believe in smog. I dunno about y'all, but I'm sick of the air in the cities I have to go to for school or work smelling like pencils or a coal mine.

Manny and Quarkz: Electric cars are "Faux Green" tech. To power them, you have to generate the electricity, which is sometimes generated via "dirty" means [coal burning or nuclear power]. They're actually VERY old tech [the first one was built in the early 1900's], but the problem of mileage and charge time limits their effectiveness. It takes a long time [hours] to charge up enough juice for that 50 mile range, limiting them to local commutes or runabouts.

I think that a very effective design might be an electric hybrid, where the generator motor was run by either a stirling engine or a Hydrogen fuel cell. Especially since the REALLY nifty thing about electric motors is that a transmission will have no moving parts: you control "gears" by changing capacitance values in the tranny.

I should try to dig up some of those old electrics, you folk would probably think they were pretty neat.

I did an essay on the history of the American automobile fairly recently, so I know that they waffled around steam and electric during the latter half of the 19th century and the early 20th century before settling on gasoline. I also acknowledged that the low range of a full-electric car would not suit well for a lot of people. I'm also familiar with the "dirty-generated clean equipment" scenario.