Just when you thought Al Gore’s head couldn’t get any bigger…

[Jolie Rouge]

The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize could go to a climate campaigner such as ex-U.S. Vice-President Al Gore or Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, reinforcing a view that global warming is a threat to world security, experts say.

The winner of the $1.5 million prize, perhaps the world’s top accolade, will be announced in Oslo on October 12 from a field of 181 candidates. The prize can be split up to three ways.

“There are reasonably good chances that the peace prize will be awarded to someone working to stop the dramatic climate problems the world is facing,” said Boerge Brende, a former Norwegian environment minister.

He noted that the U.N. Security Council, the top forum for debating war and peace, held a first debate in April about how far climate changes such as droughts, heatwaves or rising seas will be a spur to conflicts.

“We have many good candidates for the prize and we are approaching a decision,” said Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute where the five-member committee meets.


http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1874415020070918?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true



***

Related: Via USAToday, “U.S. judge kills Calif. suit citing car makers for global warming" : http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/09/us-judge-kills-.html?csp=34


California's landmark lawsuit seeking to hold automakers responsible for global warming was dismissed today by a federal judge in San Francisco, who also said that keeping the challenge alive would threaten U.S. foreign policy.

In a rebuff to Attorney General Jerry Brown, a former California governor, U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins ruled it would be impossible to gauge automakers' responsibility for climate change in the state, AP writes. Jenkins said lawmakers, not judges, should determine to what extent car makers share responsibility for global warming.

Regarding foreign-policy implications of the lawsuit, Jenkins wrote: "The political branches have deliberately elected to refrain from any unilateral commitment to reducing such emissions domestically unless developing nations make a reciprocal commitment. The EPA has recognized that imposing mandatory unilateral restrictions on domestic manufacturers would impede that diplomatic objective. ..."

[Jolie Rouge]

If Al Gore Wins The Nobel Peace Prize
Brent Budowsky - Huffington Post
Sat Sep 22, 5:31 PM ET

This week Al Gore will be addressing the United Nations about global warming at its annual meeting. It is possible that in a few short weeks America wakes up to news from Europe that Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. If this occurs, it will be a powerful transforming event in American politics that will bring a surge of patriotism and pride to a nation that has been torn by war, divided by partisanship, trapped in a quagmire and alienated from what Jefferson called the decent opinion of mankind.

Let's set aside for now the question of whether Al Gore runs for President, which is unlikely though world events can change our politics in a heartbeat. The more important matter is what happens to our national dialogue and our democracy if indeed the Nobel Prize is awarded to Gore. From the moment his award is announced through his speech in December accepting the prize, Al Gore will be the most influential living American in defining the terms of our national debate.

From the immediate surge of media attention until the aftermath of Gore's acceptance speech there will be a profound surge of international and national attention to what Al Gore stands for, and what he has done. For the first time since September 11, 2001 was hijacked as a pretext for the Iraq war, there will be a powerful, compelling and global discussion of the America that has been and should always be a genuine beacon of hope and light for the world. At first there will be saturation coverage of the dangers to planet earth, the crisis that poses the ultimate danger comparable to, and possibly even surpassing, the threat of nuclear weapons during the Cold War.

There will be a national and global debate, led by Gore, about the "war of the worlds" between the corrupt and destructive oil-based energy that creates pressures for war and dangers for earth, against the new-energy economy that would benefit citizens, consumers and the planet itself. Within hours of the Nobel announcement there would be a global statement of American ideals, American values, American traditions, and American notions that have been time honored for more than two hundred years, and placed under attack by George W. Bush and enabled by a submissive Congress unable and unwilling to stop him. There would be a statement to Americans, and to the world, that the real America is the nation that respects and rallies the free nations of the world rather than the preemptive and arrogant power that alienates freedom's best friends everywhere. There would be a statement to Americans, and to the world, that we are the nation that agrees with George Washington and believes torture is a crime unworthy of our society, and agrees with generations of military commanders and troops who believe that the Geneva Convention is right, and good, and noble and serves the safety of our troops while standing for the values of our country. There would be a statement to Americans, and to the world, that we are a nation and a people that believe in the sacred trust embodied by our Constitution, in the two hundred year legacy of the rule of law, where the King is not the law, but the law is the King.

There would be a statement to Americans, and to the world, that we are indeed the leader of the free world, the champion in the battle of ideas, the aspirational hope of good people everywhere that is the friend of those who dream, the ally of those who hope, the partner of those who seek to build a better world and that the arrogance and corruption of recent years is not the real America. What will happen, if Al Gore is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, is that his issues will be championed on the front pages and on the television screens, stronger than ever, across America and throughout the world. If Gore chooses to run for President he will have an opportunity to mobilize the nation in a manner similar to Robert Kennedy's late entry in 1968. More likely, if Gore does not run, his issues will be championed stronger than ever by candidate Clinton, candidate Obama, candidate Edwards, candidate Richardson and the others and will be acted upon, with greater commitment, by President Clinton, President Obama, President Edwards, President Richardson or whomever is elected. The Democrats will be stronger candidates; the next President will be a stronger President; the American people will feel a resurgence of the patriotism and pride when people around the world once again applaud an American leader who speaks for the authentic voice of America as world leader and beacon of hope. The recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize cannot be predicted, but with the announcement to be made within a few short weeks, there is the real possibility of a transforming moment that will lift our spirits and our national debate at a time when Americans are cynical and distrustful of our politics and government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070922/cm_huffpost/065459;_ylt=Aq8XusrL5euS7.Vur3kUc3f8B2YD

*cough*bullshit*cough

[Jolie Rouge]

Al Gore tipped to win Nobel
Sarah Baxter The Sunday Times
October 7, 2007

The environmental campaigner Al Gore is being tipped as a favourite to win the Nobel peace prize in Oslo this Friday in a controversial move that could place saving the planet above saving people from war and conflict.

Gore, a former American vice-president and failed presidential candidate, has reinvented himself as the “Goracle” with a rock star following after presenting last year’s Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, about the dangers of climate change.

He was nominated for the Nobel prize jointly with Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian Inuit activist who has campaigned about the effect of climate change on Arctic peoples. “A prerequisite for winning the Nobel peace prize is making a difference and Al Gore has made a difference,” said Boerge Brende, a former Norwegian environment minister who nominated Gore and Watt-Cloutier.

“I think they are likely winners this year,” said Stein Toennesson, director of Oslo’s International Peace Research Institute. The winner will receive $1.5m (£750,000) in prize money.

Gore spent last year assessing whether he ought to run for the White House in 2008, teasing his supporters by saying, “I haven’t completely ruled it out”, and prompting observers to keep a close eye on his girth for signs that he was slimming for a presidential bid.

Some commentators in America, including the British writer Christopher Hitchens, believe he could use a Nobel win to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. “Can he stand to watch another Clinton walk away with a nomination that could have been, or could still be, his?” Hitchens asked. Close supporters believe the answer is yes. Gore appears to have concluded that the Democrats are satisfied with their candidates. Global temperatures will rise 2.5C within the next century even if the world hits its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, according to the scientist leading research into the issue.

Consequences could include widespread starvation, as farm yields fall 50% in parts of Africa, water shortages for 300m and the destruction of 20-30% of species. If targets are missed the rise could reach 4C.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, issued his warning in London last week.

“We have come to the conclusion that global warming is unequivocal,” he said. “What is particularly worrying is that it is accelerating.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2603982.ece

Unlikely! A nomination is not worth anything. Tens of people are nominated each year from all corners of the world. And all kinds of people, both sane and insane, get to nominate people (as long as they qualify). Gore will not win, something unexpected will happen for sure.

Andrew, Oslo, Norway

[Jolie Rouge]

Carla Marinucci: UPDATE - Gore cancels appearance at Boxer fundraiser
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=21062

Sen. Barbara Boxer's office just contacted us to say former Vice President Al Gore has been called "overseas" for a trip related to his work on global warming and has canceled his scheduled appearance Thursday in San Francisco at a fundraiser for Boxer's re-election effort. So the Boxer fundraiser -- which was to include Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne -- is off until Nov. 9.

Here's a note Boxer sent supporters about the change:


I just got a call from Vice President Al Gore. He told me that he needs to travel abroad tomorrow for an exciting and urgent mission that could result in a major breakthrough in the fight against global warming.

:rolleyes:

Unfortunately, this means that we must postpone our Thursday, October 11th event with him until Friday, November 9th. I wanted to be sure to e-mail you tonight in case you were planning on attending.

While I am really disappointed that we won't see Al Gore until next month, I am thrilled that he is continuing to provide critical leadership to address one of the most pressing issues of our time. You should know that only the most urgent global warming mission has called him out of the country.

I look forward to seeing you on November 9th so we can all hear first-hand about Al Gore's latest exciting initiatives. We will be back in touch in the coming days with more details about the rescheduled event.

Thank you so much for your continued friendship and support!

Barbara Boxer

[janelle]

My hubby reminded me they were all worrying about global cooling in the 70s. Everything was going to turn to ice and we would all die. Now it's global warming. Just wait, in thirty years it will be global cooling again. Did they ever think the earth may go through these cycles on it's own? They can just measure it better now.

[Jolie Rouge]

October 12, 2007 - 11:39 AM
"The Truth" earns Gore Nobel Peace Prize

Former US vice president Al Gore and the Geneva-based United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Swiss climate researchers have hailed the decision, saying it is also a recognition of their work and that it will boost efforts to combat global warming.

Gore and the IPCC were honoured on Friday for their efforts to build up and disseminate knowledge about man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for fighting it. The former vice president, who won an Academy Award earlier this year for his film "An Inconvenient Truth", had been widely tipped to win the prestigious prize but he and the agency will share it.

"His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change," the citation said. "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

Gore called the award meaningful because of his co-winner, calling the IPCC the "world's pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis."

He warned that global warming was not a political issue but a worldwide crisis. "We face a true planetary emergency. It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity," he said. "It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level."

Bern University has played a part in Gore's achievement. Climate research carried out there, including the retreat of alpine glaciers and greenhouse gas measurements in Antartic ice cores, formed a basis for his successful documentary. "We are naturally proud of our scientific results," said Martin Grosjean, head of the university's Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research. "Al Gore and this year's IPCC reports took the results of climate research to a whole new level that made them understandable for more people."

Fighting climate change

The committee cited the IPCC for its two decades of scientific reports that have "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.

Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries including Switzerland have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming."

It went on to say that because of its efforts global warming has been increasingly recognized. In the 1980s it "seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent."

Martin Beniston, a climatologist at Geneva University who has worked for the IPCC, welcomed the decision. "It gives the IPCC extra legitimacy," he told swissinfo. "It will help shut up those who still openly deny global warming."

This year, climate change has been at the top of the world agenda, putting an end to a frustrating wait for many scientists. "Climate change has effects on water conservation, on energy and food production. That leads to fighting over resources and to forced migration," Grosjean told swissinfo. "It's not just about glaciers melting and the disappearance of a few plants."

The UN climate panel has been releasing its reports, talks on a replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate are set to resume. And on Europe's northern fringe, where the awards committee works, International Polar Year has underscored concern about the melting Arctic.

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/The_Truth_earns_Gore_Nobel_Peace_Prize.html?siteSe ct=105&sid=8307925&cKey=1192192424000&ty=st


:cheers:

[Jolie Rouge]

October 12, 2007

Le Duc Tho,

Jimmy Carter,

Yassir Arafat

- and Al Gore?

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2007/10/le_duc_tho_jimm.html

As you've all no doubt seen, the whispers turned out to be correct, for a change: Algore, in conjunction with the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, has won the Nobel "Peace" prize.

Now perhaps someone can explain to me what on earth global warming has to do with "world peace"...

Oh, wait; here we go:


The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming, "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

Well!

Who can argue with that?

Drudge has already linked to speculation that this will propel Algore into the presidential race, a possibility that Friend Lee and I were kicking around recently:


All of Gore's body language and every answer he has given to questions about running have been to discourage the idea that he would become a candidate. But for whatever reason, he has declined to make a definitive statement taking himself out of the running.

Only he knows the reason for that. Is it just to play with the press and the political community and then revel in the absurdity of all the speculation or is it because he actually believes there might be a set of events that would make is possible for him to run and win?

I assume that if Gore does decide to run, his entire campaign will more or less revolve around implementing some draconian, Luddite shutdown of industry in order to appease the Globaloney gods. Will that, combined with his status as the angriest dog in the world, be enough to knock Hillary off her pedestal of clay?

I have long believed that Hillary Clinton's only political asset is the "aura of inevitability" that surrounds her like a foggy, opalescent soap bubble; a serious campaign kafuffle could puncture it. Within the soap bubble, an old and familiar dust-devil still swirls around Sen. Clinton (D-Carpetbag, 95%), like the cloud constantly following around Pig Pen in Peanuts: a curious Clintonian cacophany of coincidence, inside of which weird things just... happen.



A thousand dollars of aimless investment miraculously turns into $100,000 worth of cattle futures;

Billing records vanish, then just as mysteriously reappear after the statute of limitations has run;


The Attorney General of the United States abruptly cannot bear to appoint an independent counsel to investigate even the most well-founded allegations of gunpowder, treason, and plot;


Documents disappear from the National Archives and are destroyed, and the miscreant -- former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger -- not only gets off with a slap on the well-padded wrist, he ends up advising Hillary on national-security issues. Son of a gun! Wonder how that just happened to... happen?

None of these incidents has any real cause, and certainly nobody is to blame; they're just -- amazing coincidences. Nobody in the elite media would dream of questioning the First Lady or the senator (now) from the great state of New York; and like Mary Poppins, she never explains anything.

But this is possible only because of the magic bubbles that others have always lent her, hiding the cacophany of coincidence: First, President Bill prevented those prying eyes, for his own reasons, by coarse and vulgar threats. Then she was shielded by being the senior junior senator from New York, with all the political power that carries.

And now, the aura of her inevitable presidency -- created by the press, the Democratic primary voters, and even the other Democratic candidates -- shields her from questions she shies from answering and arguments she shrinks from debating, even during a so-called "candidates' debate."

But now, if Mr. Inconvenient Truth decides to ride his Oscar, Emmy, and Nobel steed into the Democratic primary (campaign slogan: "Re-elect Al Gore!"), how long before his rusty sword lances that boil of inevitability? There is real bad blood between the Clintons (especially Hillary) and the Gores (especially Tipper -- mee-ow!); I think the latter believe that all the money, political muscle, and attention lavished upon the former played a major role in the latter winding up unemployed and overweight in 2001. All the king's Carvilles and all the king's Begalas were so busy getting Hillary the Roman toga she was promised, in exchange for not divorcing Bill, that they were unavailable to help push Vice President Gore over the top.

I believe there is at least a 50% chance that the Democratic race for the nomination is about to go from Clintonian coronation to globaloney Gore-gasm in sixty seconds. If Rantin' Al Gore decides to throw his head into the ring, then all bets are off.

And who knows? I might even pull an incredible victory out of a prediction I had long since written off as failed. And that would make it all worthwhile.

The Nobel Peace Prize has become a parody of itself.
From honoring President Teddy Roosevelt, for brokering peace between Japan and Russia, to today, where practiicing terrorists and toadies for tyrants and con artists promoting hysteria, the prize has become tarnished beyond recognition.

When contemplating Al Gore and the gang that he fronts for, I always have to go back to an interview conducted with Tommy Lee Jones, Gore's former Harvard roommate. When asked about Gore, Tommy Lee graciously offered that Gore was very good at Pac-man.

Gores real accomplishments are like that, thin and irrelevant. His first real notoriety came as a Senator when he negotiated with Democrat leaders and Bob Dole, the Senate Republican Leader for TV "face time" to determine if he would vote yes or no on the first Iraq war. Bob dole outbid the Dems and Gore voted yes. Then as Vice President to Clinton, Gore "reinvented government" a program designed to shield from public view questionable programs and in the process make Gore look like a management genius. Now we are treated to Gore as a front man for money-grubbing power-seeking U.N. and Euopean politicians posing as the saviour of the world from bad weather. He has a horse to ride toward the Presidency. Pac-man will just have to wait.

[Jolie Rouge]

What has Al Gore done for world peace?
Damian Thompson

So Al Gore is the joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Admittedly, he has to share it with the United Nations’ climate change panel - but, even so, I think we need to declare an international smugness alert.

The former US Vice-President has already taken over from Michael Moore as the most sanctimonious lardbutt Yank on the planet. Can you imagine what he'll be like now that the Norwegian Nobel committee has given him the prize?

http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/algorepray.jpg

More to the point, can you imagine how enormous his already massive carbon footprint will become once he starts jetting around the world bragging about his new title?

Just after Gore won an Oscar for his global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth - in which he asked American households to cut their use of electricity - the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research took a look at Al's energy bills. It reckoned that his 20-room, eight-bathroom mansion in Nashville sometimes uses twice the energy in one month that the average American household gets through in a year. The combined energy and gas bills for his estate came to nearly $30,000 in 2006. Ah, say his defenders, but he uses rainwater to flush his lavatories. Is there enough rainwater in the world, I wonder?

There are so many reasons why Gore shouldn't have won the peace prize for his preachiness. Alas, it is too late to influence their decision, but I'd have liked to refer the judges to a ruling by Mr Justice Burton, a High Court judge who has criticised the Government for sending out An Inconvenient Truth to schools without a health warning. The reason? It's full of errors and unsubstantiated claims.

The judge is not saying that Gore's basic thesis is wrong (and nor am I). In a way, his findings are more damning than that.

Gore claims that the rises in carbon dioxide and temperature over 650,000 years show an "exact fit". That's wrong, says Mr Justice Burton: there is a connection, but not a precise correlation.

Gore predicts sea levels rising by up to 20ft in the near future. Not so, according to the judge: that will happen only after millions of years.

Those low-lying Pacific atolls that Gore claims have been evacuated? No evidence. Polar bears who drowned swimming to look for ice? Again, no evidence: four bears have drowned - but because of a storm.

None of which will surprise seasoned Gore-watchers. The man is not, as his enemies maintained when he ran against George W. Bush in 2000, a pants-on-fire liar. He's an exaggerator and a braggart.

He never claimed to have invented the internet; he said he "took the initiative in creating the internet", which is about a quarter true - he was among the first congressmen to support the invention.

In 1999, he boasted about having uncovered the most famous toxic waste site in America ("I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal"). Yes, but Love Canal was already notorious by the time Gore "found" it.

That's typical of his arrogance, says the non-partisan US politics website Skeleton Closet: "When he says the words 'little place', you can feel him struggling to contain his pleasure with his good deeds."

Gore struggles with his memory, too. "I certainly learnt a lot from 3,000 town hall meetings across …Tennessee over a 16-year period," he told National Public Radio. And so he would have, had he actually attended 187 town hall meetings a year, which is what it works out as: he might even have managed to hold his home state in 2000.

But my favourite Gore memory lapse is his account of being sung to sleep with the lullaby Look for the Union Label, written in 1975. How sweet: being sung to sleep by your parents at the age of 27.

Then there's his evasiveness on the subject of alleged ethical violations. He resorts to "legalisms", says Skeleton Closet: although he might technically be in the right, "he has such a tin ear for the way normal people talk that he sounds like a mafia don".

But there is a more fundamental objection to awarding Gore the peace prize that goes beyond issues of character. Climate change is a threat to the environment, not to "peace" and international order. The prize has gone to some sleazy recipients in the past, but at least you can make a case that their actions staved off bloodshed.

Lumping together global warming and terrorism, as David Cameron did in his conference speech, is a rhetorical sleight of hand typical of opportunistic politicians who are trying to hoover up liberal and conservative votes at the same time. I don't think that description applies to the Tory leader, but it sure as hell fits Albert Gore, Jr.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/10/12/do1202.xml

The Czech president speaks some truly inconvenient truths :

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a rare vocal global- warming sceptic among heads of state, is “somewhat surprised” that former US vice president Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, the president’s spokesman Petr Hajek said in a statement.

“The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct,” the statement said. “It rather seems that Gore’s doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace.”

Klaus said in a recent speech that environmentalists’ efforts to halt global warming “fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity.”

The Czech president publicly expresses doubt on what scientists, including those participating in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also this year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate, deem very likely - that global warming is caused by humans.

He also said that rising temperatures may not matter enough for governments to throw funds at halting the process.

In a newspaper interview earlier this year, Klaus said that only Al Gore, and not a sane person, would say that mankind is ruining the planet.

http://www.eux.tv/article.aspx?articleId=15975


I would have alot more respect for Gore if he didn't use 20 times the energy (at only ONE of his homes) than the average American (those numbers came right off his elec bill). He buys carbon credits from a company he part-owns. They even caught him lat month sneaking onto a private jet. Limousine liberalism at it's best. Al Gore is a millionaire whose personal carbon footprint is many times the average American's, is getting another few millions for "saving the planet from war". I don't recall what war he has stopped. I don't understand how he has made the world more peaceful. It's completely crazy.

Al Gore: An Inconvenient Story…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPDWDl6_KbY&eurl=

[Starlady01]

I'm also an activist for recycling ect. But I'm still not voting for Al Gore because I don't like alot of other things he believe in.

So far I'm looking more at Fred Thompson, they are saying America is ready for a fresh face in office. And I happen to agree with alot of his views. He is just one point behind Giuliani also and a top competitor.

Thompson is going to take alot of votes I'm sure of this.

[Starlady01]

One point behind Giuliani on the Internet polls ain't bad considering he just got in the race and is a late entrant for presidency.

[Jolie Rouge]

My hubby reminded me they were all worrying about global cooling in the 70s. Everything was going to turn to ice and we would all die. Now it's global warming. Just wait, in thirty years it will be global cooling again. Did they ever think the earth may go through these cycles on it's own? They can just measure it better now.


http://ibdeditorials.com/images/toon103006a.gif

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama: Role for Gore if he wants
By HOLLY RAMER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 56 minutes ago

DOVER, N.H. - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama says Al Gore would play a key role in his administration if he wants one, but he won't say whether he'd ask him to be his running mate.

After listening to Obama address a crowded community center Wednesday, a voter asked him to consider naming Gore as his running mate before the nomination is decided "as a way to take the wind out of Hillary's sails."

The voter even proposed a campaign slogan: "Obama and Gore: Experience and Youth. Obama and Gore: Wisdom and Truth."

Not so fast, came Obama's reply.

The Illinois senator said Gore would be involved in his administration in a "very senior capacity, if he's willing" but joked: "I will also be honest with you: having won the Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar, being vice president again would probably be a step down for him."

Gore won the prize this month for working to raise awareness about global warming.

Answering the broader question — why him instead of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — Obama repeated his argument that he is uniquely qualified to end the gridlock in Washington.

"I think people feel like I listen, and I've got some common sense and I don't have a lot of baggage," he said.

Obama also said opening government to public scrutiny will be at the heart of his administration, and he criticized the Bush administration as too secretive.

"I'm not just going to have one of these press conferences every six months where I call on my three favorite reporters. We're going to have regular press conferences to explain to the American people here's what we're trying to do and to be held accountable," said Obama, though like Clinton, he rarely holds news conferences on the campaign trail.

Another question came from a woman more concerned with Obama's fate in the general election if he is nominated. She asked how he would he avoid being "Swift Boated," referring to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads about John Kerry's Vietnam War record that helped sink the Massachusetts senator's presidential hopes in 2004.

Obama said he expects to face similar attacks if he becomes the nominee.

"I have no doubt there will be some of that — trying to make me into this foreign, odd, clearly black person and to scare people," he said. "When people try to Swift Boat you, you have to respond forcefully, you have to respond immediately and you have to respond truthfully. ... We are prepared for whatever they will throw at us."

In his answer, Obama also responded to Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who said Wednesday that he'd made a slip of the tongue a day earlier when he said Obama, instead of Osama bin Laden, had urged terrorists to unite in Iraq.

"I think when Romney starts saying this stuff sometimes it may be honest mistakes, sometimes not. You don't know," Obama said.

He took a lighter tone when another questioner asked him to describe the differences between himself and bin Laden.

"Mitt Romney's been very confused about this," Obama said. "I have a lot of trouble growing a beard. I don't have a lot of facial hair, that's a good place to start. He lives in a cave."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071025/ap_on_el_pr/obama_gore;_ylt=AuLxeNxC0HKYYhlqpoQEGXys0NUE

[Jolie Rouge]

Gore gets Nobel, warns of ominous threat
By DOUG MELLGREN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 3 minutes ago

OSLO, Norway - Al Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize on Monday and urged the United States and China to make the boldest moves on climate change or "stand accountable before history for their failure to act."

In accepting the prize he shared with the U.N. climate panel, the former vice president said humanity risks sliding down a path of "mutually assured destruction." "It is time to make peace with the planet," Gore said in his acceptance speech that quoted Churchill, Gandhi and the Bible. "We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war."

Gore shared the Nobel with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for sounding the alarm over global warming and spreading awareness on how to counteract it. The U.N. panel was represented at the ceremony by its leader, Rajendra Pachauri. "We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency — a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here," Gore said at the gala ceremony in Oslo's city hall, in front of Norway's royalty, leaders and invited guests.

Gore urged China and the U.S. — the world's biggest carbon emitters — to "make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act."

His remarks came as governments met in Bali, Indonesia, to start work on a new international treaty to reduce climate-damaging carbon dioxide emissions. Gore and Pachauri plan to fly there Wednesday to join the climate talks.

The governments hope to have the new pact, which succeeds the Kyoto accord, in place by 2012, but Gore has said the urgency of the problem means they should aim to come to an agreement by 2010.

Before his speech, Gore said in an interview with The Associated Press that he believes the next U.S. president will shift the country's course on climate change and engage in global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. "The new president, whichever party wins the election, is likely to have to change the position on this climate crisis," Gore said in the interview. "I do believe the U.S., soon, is to have a more constructive role."

He said it was not too late for Bush administration to join efforts to draft a new global treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions. "I have urged President Bush and his administration to be part of the world community's effort to solve this crisis," Gore said. "I hope they will change their position."

The Bush administration opposed the Kyoto treaty on climate change, saying it would hurt the U.S. economy and objecting that fast developing nations like China and India were not required to reduce emissions.

In his speech, Gore urged nations to impose a CO2 tax, and called for a moratorium on the building of new coal plants without the capacity to trap carbon. He directed special attention to the United States and China, the world's biggest emitters of carbon emissions. "While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters — and most of all, my own country — that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act," Gore said. "Both countries should stop using the other's behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment."

Pachauri described in his speech how a warming climate could lead to flooding of low-lying countries, disruptions to food supply, the spread of diseases and the loss of biodiversity.

The impact "could prove extremely unsettling" for the world's poor and vulnerable, he said, and ended his speech with a question for the Bali conference: "Will those responsible for decisions in the field of climate change at the global level listen to the voice of science and knowledge, which is now loud and clear?"

Each Nobel Prize includes a gold medal, a diploma and a $1.6 million cash award.

The Nobel Prizes, first awarded in 1901, are always presented Dec. 10, the anniversary of the death of their creator, Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel.

The other Nobel awards — in medicine, chemistry, physics, literature and economics — will be presented at a separate ceremony in Stockholm, Sweden.

In Stockholm, the winners of the science Nobels receive their awards Monday from Sweden's King Carl XVI Gustaf before being treated to a lavish white-tie banquet at City Hall.

The 2007 awards in medicine, chemistry and physics honored breakthroughs in stem cell research on mice, solid-surface chemistry and the discovery of a phenomenon that lets computers and digital music players store reams of data on ever-shrinking hard disks.

Three U.S. economists shared the economics award for their work on how people's knowledge and self-interest affect their behavior in the market or in social situations such as voting and labor negotiations.

One of the economics winners, Leonid Hurwicz, 90, and the literature prize winner, 88-year-old British writer Doris Lessing, could not travel to Stockholm. They will receive their awards at later ceremonies in Minnesota and London, respectively.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_re_eu/nobel_prizes;_ylt=AmCpAMp6MjcQ.n_Bfs.ILwKs0NUE

On the Net: http://www.nobelpeaceprize.org


----


In accepting his Nobel Peace(?) Prize today Al Gore explained...
"We are what is wrong."
(Some of us just get paid more) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7136755.stm

But when you get paid $3,300 per minute for making a green speech, it tends to ease the pain of it all somehow. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=500586&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

Al Gore, who flew into Oslo, Norway from Bali, Indonesia, also warned of the ominous threat of man-made global warming during his speech. He then flew back to the UN Global Warming summit in Bali to join the other emitters who are discharging more hot air than the country of Chad does in a year.

Maybe - "We are what is wrong" - pertains more to some than others?

More Gore... "It is time to make peace with the planet."
http://thinkprogress.org/gore-nobel-speech ...A critical line from his speech today since most earthlings are still wondering how he ever won a peace award in the first place.

[Jolie Rouge]

The Pope condemns the climate change prophets
By SIMON CALDWELL
11th December 2007

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind. "Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow," he said in the message entitled "The Human Family, A Community of Peace".

"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.

"If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.

"Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken."

Efforts to protect the environment should seek "agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances", the Pope said.

He added that to further the cause of world peace it was sensible for nations to "choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions" in how to cooperate responsibly on conserving the planet.

The Pope's message is traditionally sent to heads of government and international organisations.

His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped.

A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change. But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.

Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth's temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.

In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists.

But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion.

In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius.

"The industrial-military complex up on Mars can't be blamed for that," he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316

[hblueeyes]

As far as global warming goes, yes we as humans contribute greatly, but what was the cause before man? Probably methane gas from the poop of the dinosaurs and other living things. Everything cycles as so does the heating and cooling of the planet. Even glaciers have a life cycle. I am sure the warming trend is helping it quicken its pace but what will be, will be as that is the way of the grand design. I would bet my life that there are fossils in the antartic from when it was green pastures instead of a frozen tundra.

Me

[Jolie Rouge]

Ron Grover at Business Week reports that Al Gore’s latest business deal doesn’t smell right: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2008/tc2008035_855093.htm?campaign_id=yhoo


Something about this deal just doesn’t sit right with me. Gore isn’t just taking piles of cash. According to the filing Gore, who is listed as executive chairman, and his CEO partner, lawyer-turned-entrepreneur Joel Hyatt, each loaned the company $1 million to get it started. They’ll get that back in the IPO. But the two guys also collect hefty salaries for a company that hasn’t shown a profit in three years—taking down $491,677 apiece last year in cash, plus bonuses of $550,000 each for, in Gore’s case, helping get the company new affiliate agreements, broadening exiting agreements, and putting together a management team. The two currently receive $600,000 a year in salary and are eligible for additional bonuses, according to the IPO filing.

By comparison, at the time of the Google IPO in 2004, its two founders were each taking home a total of $356,556 in salary and bonuses, while sitting on top of a company that had earned nearly $106 million the year before.

Outsize Shareholder Clout

What really sticks out to me, however, is that Gore and Hyatt, who started the company in 2002 (and jump-started it with a broken-down Newsworld International channel they bought for $70.9 million) will have the kind of hammer-lock control over the company decried by shareholder rights activists and many of the same unions that supported Gore for years. According to the filing, once the dust has settled Gore and Hyatt will control all of the company’s Class B shares, which give them 10 votes for every vote a common shareholder gets with a Class A share.

The company hasn’t said how many shares it will issue, so there is no way of knowing just how much control Gore and Hyatt will exercise. But the Google founders, who also control their company’s Class B shares, hold nearly 56% voting control of the company (of course, far as I know, they never ran for public office).

CurrentTV executives say they can’t comment during the IPO quiet period. But a source with knowledge of what the board was thinking says that it gave Gore and Hyatt B shares to maintain the channel’s editorial integrity and vision, and for advertisers to be sure of its future direction. The board, according to this source, believes Current TV isn’t a typical media company in that it has a mission to make sure young people can share their views. Other media companies, including the New York Times Co. (NYT) and Dow Jones (NWS), have issued B shares so that their founders could maintain their editorial voice as well. (The New York Times is now facing a proxy battle with its largest shareholder to elect its own shareholders in a battle of wills with the B shareholders.)

Sorry, but I don’t buy the rationale for this preferential treatment. This Class B share stuff just stinks, especially for a man of the people like Al Gore. “That’s hardly democratic—with a large D or a small d,” agrees University of Delaware corporate governance expert Charles Elson. “The irony is that this is coming from a Democratic leader.”

So, let me see, they’re collecting huge salaries from a company that doesn’t make money. I’m assuming here that it isn’t registered as a non-profit organization.

Talk about not passing the smell test!

I am not – I repeat NOT – defending AlGore. The man is brilliant, like it or not. His scam on carbon credits was just awesome. Create a nonprofit company that sells carbon credits then buy those credits from himself. He keeps his cash and gets a tax break at the same time whilst looking like he is supporting a charity. That is simply awesome (if you do not have a conscience).

Now, he will tie up another company while having the liberty of spreading his global warming farce to little kiddies who are scared of standing in front of a train coming to kill them. Sorry, he is freaking brilliant.

Our job is to educate our own children to keep them from being brain washed. It is already too late for them to dodge the carbon usage tax coming their way – thanks Democrats. The best they can hope for is to create their own nonprofit company and buy their credits from themselves. Good luck. Soon, there will be “approved” companies and guess who will control them? AlGore, wait and see.

[Jolie Rouge]

Gore sets energy goal for next president to heed
By RON FOURNIER and DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writers
15 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.

The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president said fellow Democrat Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain are "way ahead" of most politicians in the fight against global climate change.

Rising fuel costs, climate change and the national security threats posed by U.S. dependence on foreign oil are conspiring to create "a new political environment" that Gore said will sustain bold and expensive steps to wean the nation off fossil fuels.

"I have never seen an opportunity for the country like the one that's emerging now," Gore told The Associated Press in an interview previewing a speech on global warming he planned to give Thursday in Washington.

In his speech, Gore said some of the nation's biggest success stories have come from making commitments to goals well beyond the next election, citing the Marshall plan for rebuilding Europe, Social Security and the interstate highway system, in addition to putting a man on the moon.

"A political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that's meaningless," he said. "Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit the target."

He said it also coincides with experts' predictions that unless dramatic changes to reduce global warming pollution are made within the next decade, "our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis" may be lost.

Gore said the single most important policy change would be placing a carbon tax on burning oil and coal.

The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group he leads, estimates the cost of transforming the U.S. to clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money. But he says it would cost about as much to build greenhouse gas-polluting coal plants to satisfy current demand.

"This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over," Gore said. "It's an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels."

Called an alarmist by conservatives, Gore has made global warming his signature issue. He portrayed Thursday's speech as the latest and most important phase in his effort to build public opinion in favor of alternative fuels.

Gore knows politicians fear action unless voters are willing to sacrifice — and demand new fuels.

"I hope to contribute to a new political environment in this country that will allow the next president to do what I think the next president is going to think is the right thing to do," Gore said. "But the people have to play a part." He compared his challenge to Kennedy's pledge in May 1961 to land a man on the moon by the end of the decade.

Gore narrowly lost the presidential race in 2000 to then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush after a campaign in which his prescient views on climate change took a back seat to other issues. In the 2008 presidential race, both the Republican and Democrat candidates support action to curb the gases blamed for global warming.

While dismissing a suggestion that he pulled his punches eight years ago, Gore said his goal now is to "enlarge the political space" within which politicians can "deal with the climate challenge."

To meet his 10-year goal, Gore said nuclear energy output would continue at current levels while the U.S. dramatically increases its use of solar, wind, geothermal and clean coal energy. Huge investments must also be made in technologies that reduce energy waste and link existing power grids, he said.

Gore's proposal would represent a significant shift in where the U.S. gets its power. In 2005, the United States produced nearly 3.7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, with coal providing slightly more than half of that energy, according to government statistics. Nuclear power accounted for 21 percent, natural gas 15 percent and renewable sources, including wind and solar, about 8.6 percent.

Coal's share of electricity generation is only expected to grow come 2030, according to Energy Department forecasts, while renewable energy would still only provide 11 percent of the nation's power.

Without action, the cost of oil will continue to rise as fast-growing China and India increase demand, Gore said. Sustained addiction to oil also will place the U.S. at the mercy of oil-producing governments, he said, and the globe would suffer irreparable harm.

Government experts recently predicted that, at the current rate and without an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, world energy demand will grow 50 percent over the next two decades. The Energy Information Administration also said in its long-range forecast to 2030 that the world is not close to abandoning fossil fuels despite their role in global warming.

While electricity production is only part of the nation's energy and climate change problem, Gore said, "If we meet this challenge we will solve the rest of it."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_on_re_us/gore_electricity;_ylt=AtTxS7fp6Yww9cmyw4.kuHKs0NUE

[tngirl]

I heard this on the radio today and thought it was rather funny. How the heck did this man even win the Prize? Was it a sympathy vote?

[Jolie Rouge]

Gore's Hypocrisy Exposed in New Video:
His Entourage's Lincoln Town Car Outside Global Warming Speech Idles w/ AC Cranking for 20 Minutes!
Mark Block

We're back from Al Gore's big global warming speech, and boy did we have a great time! We had a dedicated band of taxpayer advocates out in force, pointing out the high economic cost of global warming alarmism - starting with $8 a gallon gasoline.

Of course, we saw plenty of hypocrisy -- especially the fact that Gore didn't ride his bike or take public transporation to the event. He didn't even take his Prius! Instead, he brought a fleet of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevy Suburban SUV! Even worse, the driver of the Town Car that eventually whisked away Gore's wife and daughter left the engine idling and the AC cranking for 20 minutes before they finally left!

Check it out in our video from the scene:

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=6070

(Watch until the very end ... )

[janelle]

LOL, do as I say, not as I do.

I guess winning the Nobel Peace Prize had embolden him. He use to have his chauffeur park about five blocks away, have his daughter meet him with her Prius and then he would drive to the events. After he would go back to the limo and be driven to the airport back to his private jet. LOL