October 12th, 2007
08:47 AM ET
11 years ago

Gore gets Nobel Peace Prize

"An Inconvenient Truth," a 2006 documentary featuring Al Gore, won two Academy Awards this year.

(CNN) - Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their work to raise awareness about global warming.

In a statement, Gore said he was "deeply honored," adding that "the climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."

The former vice president said he would donate his half of the $1.5 million prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a U.S. organization he founded that aims to persuade people to cut emissions and reduce global warming.

Full story

Filed under: Al Gore
soundoff (92 Responses)
  1. Rodney Dallas TX


    October 12, 2007 09:04 am at 9:04 am |
  2. THOMAS BILLIS las vegas nv

    Al Gore gets the Nobel Peace Prize America with George Bush gets the booby prize.We voted for someone we wanted to have a beer with and now the hangover just keeps worse.When I say we I mean the country .I voted for Gore.I wanted a President not a beer drinking buddy.

    October 12, 2007 09:06 am at 9:06 am |
  3. Lisa - Rochester, NY

    It is wonderful that Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
    Sadly, CNN chooses to question his deserving of the prize rather than celebrate an American being the recipient of such an honor.

    October 12, 2007 09:20 am at 9:20 am |
  4. laurinda,ny

    As a Demoocrat I am so proud of Al Gore!! All of us who are for animals rights and the environmental organizations are proud of you. Thank you for speaking the truth. You are appreciated.

    October 12, 2007 09:22 am at 9:22 am |
  5. Justin Kane, Hudson MA

    I have just lost all respect for the Nobel Prize award. If the Nobel Committe are willing to give it to him for raising awareness about global warming (using many false facts), when he personally causes the emmisions of more CO2 then the average small country, then they do not deserve our respect. Their are many people who work to correct global warming who actually deserve an award, and are not hypocrites, but they do not recieve it. This is a sad state of affairs.

    October 12, 2007 09:23 am at 9:23 am |
  6. David, Tulsa OK

    "Spiritual issue"? That comment pretty much justifies a lot of the criticisms that the global warming movement is a replacement religion for the far-left.

    At this point nobody rejects the idea of climate change, since that's what climate does over time, but there are problems with the sources explaining the climate change is because of human activity - these same scientific groups have been wrong before (coming ice age back in the '70s).

    Now that he has a Nobel to go with his emmy and oscar, I expect to see Gore levitate at any moment.

    October 12, 2007 09:23 am at 9:23 am |
  7. Chris, Middletown, CT

    The Nobel Prize can no be thought of as having the same significance as the "Blockbuster Award" – England won't allow his movie to be shown unless you point out 9 factual issues – go to your local museum...and see the fossils they have....from your area....that are tropical plants....and ask anyone to identify the greenhouse gases that are thought to affect temperature....in order....its WATER VAPOR....METHANE...and then CO2....and temperature increases were recorded first...then CO2 increased...(and 95% of the CO2 is natural...not manmade) – amazing....research for yourself....its a sad day

    October 12, 2007 09:38 am at 9:38 am |
  8. John, St. Louis, MO

    A Peace Prize? Maybe I am confused on the definition of Peace. Don't get me wrong, the former Vice-President is a reputable man and fine American citizen. I just don't see how raising awareness on global warming is making the world a more peaceful place. By being more green, does that make the Middle East or any other war-torn region less of a disaster??? Not in my opinion.

    October 12, 2007 09:47 am at 9:47 am |
  9. Ben, Chicago IL

    A judge recently ruled in the UK that Gore's film was politically partisan can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination due to errors in the film, and yet Gore gets a Nobel Peace prize for this? I guess this prize has just as much meaning as when Henry Kissinger won it in 1973 for helping to 'end' the Vietnam War, even though the war kept going for another couple years. Oh, and let's not forgot how Yasser Arafat won the peace prize in 1993 for mid-east peace efforts, even though he was involved with many terrorist acts and organizations before that year.

    October 12, 2007 09:52 am at 9:52 am |
  10. Mark R. Fort Lauderdale FL

    Boy America, can you imagine how different the world would be if Al Gore had been president instead of George Bush. Wow. Just wow.

    October 12, 2007 09:53 am at 9:53 am |
  11. therealist

    Man has known that the climate has been warming ever since the glaciers began receding from New York and Maine. ie.., THOUSANDS OF YEARS. What was the premise of that reward??

    The Nobel Peace Prize is clearly given out by the scientifically ignorant.

    October 12, 2007 10:01 am at 10:01 am |
  12. J Houston, TX

    What a joke. No scientist (aside from the complete nutjobs that studied climatology) will suggest man-made global warming is a threat. The only people who suggest this stuff are the ones who stand to make money off of it. Just like they did 30 years ago when we heard about "global cooling" being a threat to our existence and that we were all going to freeze to death. This combined with "TIME" calling him a "scientist" shows the liberal media machine at work. This is a joke. As an engineer, may I emphasize, look at the data, peer review it by somebody who DOESN'T stand to make money off of it or rely on funding because of it. This thing is NOT REAL. Climate change WILL HAPPEN with or without human interference. Trying to stop climate change goes AGAINST NATURE.

    October 12, 2007 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  13. Brad D, San Diego, CA

    I think Gore is doing more harm by making himself out to be "Mr. Global warming". We need the focus to be on the science and economics of global warming, not on any one personality, particularly that of a non-scientist.

    We need more conservatives to be able to approach the issue of global warming based on scientific facts, (not the sort that are rattled off on AM radio,) without the knee-jerk reaction that it's a liberal issue or such.

    We need to dramatically improve science education!

    October 12, 2007 10:15 am at 10:15 am |
  14. Barabas, Hot City, TX

    From now on, the Nobel Peace Prize will be about as valuable as that "honorable mention" award I got for my 3rd grade science project. I feel bad for all the other Nobel Prize winners who got their awards for legitimate reasons.

    October 12, 2007 10:24 am at 10:24 am |
  15. Simon - Houston Texas

    Shock shock!

    A liberal organization gives liberal award to liberal hack. I am shocked.

    This just in, Water is Wet and Fire is Hot... pictures at 11:00.

    October 12, 2007 10:38 am at 10:38 am |
  16. Terry, El Paso, TX

    Congratulations to Mr. Gore on the recognition given to his work by the Nobel Prize selection committee. It makes any patriotic American's heart beat a little faster when a fellow citizen wins a Nobel Prize, and the Peace Prize is surely the most prestigious of the lot.

    To the Conservatives who post their spluttering rage against Mr. Gore on these blog pages: isn't it puzzling to you that former President Carter and former Vice President Gore received Nobel Prizes? Don't you wonder why Carter, Clinton, and Gore receive the accolades of foreigners and foreign governments while Conservatives Nixon, Reagan, and Bush (not the good one) were and are viewed by the world with contempt? The only Republican President to receive a Nobel Prize was Theodore Roosevelt, and no one would accuse him of being a Conservative.

    Could it be that it is YOU who are out of step, who does not understand, who has been deluded by his leadership. Isn't it puzzling to you that so many of us listen to you, understand your philosophy, and dismiss it as delusional thinking? Are so many of us as stupid as you say? Are all scientists really lying about global warming? Why would they do that?

    October 12, 2007 10:43 am at 10:43 am |
  17. RightyTighty

    One of Al's three homes uses 20 times the electricity as my house. I'm sick of getting lectured by hypocrites, aren't you?

    What did Al's do after winning the aware last night CNN? Just how green is he CNN?? Liars!!!

    October 12, 2007 10:49 am at 10:49 am |
  18. therealist

    Al Gore is getting ready to spend 200 million dollars on...

    Children straving in Africa?
    Genicide in Darfur?
    Human rights in China?
    Religous hate in the Middle East?
    Poverty in America?

    No!, on TV ads in America to explain the 2 degree tempature change over the last century and how it will effect us over the next 5 centuries. Oh, and his salary of course. I wonder if Al will get the same family discount from the liberal media?

    October 12, 2007 10:58 am at 10:58 am |
  19. Brent, Madison, WI

    Now is the day that every atmospheric scientist should tender their resignations, retire to some old person home, and relish the day that they allowed a politician to usurp their authority on the greatest topic ever to arise in our field.
    Although it is my professional opinion that global warming is ocurring, I can't stand by many of the outrageous statments made by Al and the 'environmentalist' NGOs. They serve only to obfuscate the general understanding of global environmental topics. They distract from the real environmental issues that will face our society in the next few years with far fetched ideas and scenarios that might, maybe, could, possibly happen over the next century.
    Simply put–stop discussing global warming, stop hyping the situation, quit being a doomsdayist, and teach people to conserve energy because it is the moral thing to do.

    October 12, 2007 11:00 am at 11:00 am |
  20. Joe, Bethlehem PA

    Congrats to Al Gore. However many of you over look so much. First, he might not be the most deserving of this award, some other people may have done more work, but he has brought this issue into the homes of the masses and educated them on how they can help.

    Secondly, to all you people who continue to claim that climate change is natural you are correct, and no one is arguing that point. Climate change is not a problem caused by humans. It is the RATE of climate change that we have effected that has the negative effect on the earth.

    Lastly, don't compare what scientists thought years ago (David) because technology has improved allowing to gather more accurate data. For example before 1950 we didn't know what DNA was and now it is a household word. Most scientists won't gain money from this. These scientists love science and what they do and are just looking at data and making conclusions based on observations in orer to help better the world. Some of them are glory hounds, however the majority are not.

    I think many of you are just haters, probably the same people that hate on Tiger Woods and A-Rod just because they are doing amazing things.

    October 12, 2007 11:00 am at 11:00 am |
  21. Jin, DallasTX

    Sorry folks... but 150 to 200 years of shoddily-gathered weather data is entirely too shallow of a data pool to attempt to ascertain some sort of pattern of “man made global warming.”

    The data pool is just too shallow to make these assertions.

    Attempting to do so is akin to muting your TV’s sound, then sitting with your nose pressed to the screen, focusing on one dot of color and attempting to determine the plot of the program you’re watching. It simply cannot be done. Maybe if we each lived to be a million years old, we could see a pattern, but not from the vantage point of our puny 72-year average life span.

    Is global warming real? Hell, it may very well be. But did the tiny insignificant human species of animal cause it? Certainly not.

    I find this argument really quite humorous and ironic. On one hand, liberals hate the notion of religion and mock people of faith as “god bags,” who worship “invisible sky fairies.”

    Then, in the very next breath, their belief in “man made” global warming essentially makes the human species into (cue dramatic music here) “GOD LIKE BEINGS!!! CAPABLE OF CHANGING THE WEATHER!!! MWU-HA-HA!!! FEEL MY WRATH, YOU SILLY PLANET! I AM A GOD AND I CAN CHANGE THE WEATHER!!!”

    Folks, even with nearly 200 years of gathered weather data and huge advances in computers, satellites and technology in general, the weatherman STILL cannot tell me with any shred of accuracy whether it will rain this weekend.

    Now, you expect people to believe that not only can you PREDICT the weather in the future, but you have the power to actually CHANGE it too? And not even change it on purpose, but rather, we have changed the climate ACCIDENTALLY??!

    Sorry folks, I’m not buying it. If you’re buying it, maybe I could interest you in this bridge I own… It spans some lovely swampland that I also have for sale…

    Simply put… the entire notion of this manmade global warming hullabaloo is simply this: Religion for the Faithless. And the zealotry of this religion's believers is only eclipsed by the followers of Islam.

    October 12, 2007 11:03 am at 11:03 am |
  22. James, Phoenix AZ

    Aw, listen to the conservatives throw their temper tantrums.

    A democrat who shows some interest in the world and people as a whole.

    A total mystery to Republicans.

    October 12, 2007 11:04 am at 11:04 am |
  23. Mark. Shreveport, LA

    First Gorbachev gets the Peace prize before his tanks roll over people in the Baltics, now Al Gore.

    What has Gore done to make the world safer and more at peace?
    I mean he did accept illegal contributions at a Buddhist temple, but did that foster peace?

    October 12, 2007 11:17 am at 11:17 am |
  24. M J P - Houston, Texas

    El Paso Terry wrote: "Don't you wonder why Carter, Clinton, and Gore receive the accolades of foreigners and foreign governments while Conservatives Nixon, Reagan, and Bush (not the good one) were and are viewed by the world with contempt?"

    Uh, for the same reason why Michael Moore and Al Gore both win Oscars for films that have both been heavily discounted as simple chicanery, but a conservative film maker never would win such an award: bias on the part of those who hand out the awards. Duh.

    You also said: The only Republican President to receive a Nobel Prize was Theodore Roosevelt, and no one would accuse him of being a Conservative."

    Au Contraire Mon Frair! I'm a conservative and I'd say TR is probably the best example of what conservatism is all about. It's certainly not what modern day "republicans" (big spending, self righteous liberals in disguise, who pummel people over the head with their supposed "morality" and religion) have turned the notion of "conservatism" into.

    Quite frankly, I don't care if they annoint Al Gore as Supreme Grand Poobah of the Imperial Order of the Left-Handed Knights of Genovia. The organization is still biased and their awards mean very little.

    Sure, if you place much credence in the organization, then I guess the award may mean something to you.

    But to those of us who have simply grown beyond the turd-world class-warfare ramblings of the United Nations (To quote Obi Wan, "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy"), these organizations and their awards are about as relevant as the League of Nations.

    October 12, 2007 11:24 am at 11:24 am |
  25. David, Tulsa OK

    Joe – you made my point, technology progresses and past errors emerge. In which case, we should expect our understanding to change in the future which may point out that steps taken were incorrect.

    That doesn't mean "don't do anything", it means "chill the hype". We should conserve as a matter of good stewardship, not treat global warming as a political/religious topic with the same arrogance and intolerance shown in both those areas.

    And "prophets" are much easier to accept when the walk the talk and eschew personal engrandizement.

    October 12, 2007 11:26 am at 11:26 am |
1 2 3 4