"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.
thats all good but its time for al to hurry up and endorse obama!!! times a wasting al stop this clinton machine because i bet my life the GOP WILL...
So many of these comments remind me of why George Bush was voted into office not only the first time but the second time which was sooo disturbing. Once again proving that "conservatives" continually focus their negative attention on issues out of hatred and ignorance. No matter if you agree or not that Gore should have received the Prize, at least he is focusing on getting the world to improve something as opposed to destroying countries. Al Gore getting the Peace Prize doesn't disturb me anywhere near as as much as some of the attitudes of so many of you. What exactly is your motivation to fight against improving the environment in which we live? Who is making this political exactly? Those of you complaining should realize that you are the ones who voted Bush into office and Al Gore getting the Prize is most likely a reaction to the Bush administration's policies. If you want to be disappointed with the committee, maybe you should look in the mirror or feel free to kick yourself.
What A Coincidence!!!...Dick Cheney just won the N.R.A. Hunter of the Year Award I guess that makes it a banner day for incompotent vice presidents all around!!
Jimmy Carter deserved the Nobel Prize for his efforts towards peace. Gore's film was about climate change.... nothing to do with world peace
On A related Note...Paris Hilton just won the prestegious People Magazine's top 10 worst dressed entertainer award!!!
Yea, right, the Nobel peace prize has been tarnished forever! Gore's carbon footprint is enough for 20 people. What a shame, something that meant so much now means nothing.
CNN deleted my comments below as it finds Mr. Tucker's comments more pragmatic and intelligent:
By Mr. Tucker's definition, next year's nobel peace prize should be given to Bush and Cheney by bringing peace and love among Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
Okay, let's think about this rationally. Let's put aside all of the wrangling over the data and think about consequences:
If global warming isn't real, we have not gained or lost anything by trying to conserve energy (except some lower electric bills). If global warming IS real, however, then we have lost EVERYTHING by not trying to conserve energy.
Seems like the more rational choice is to conserve energy, just in case this whole climate change thing turns out to be real (and contrary to what some dim-witted posters put above; there IS ample evidence to suggest we impact the climate).
For whatever reason, conservatives take it as a personal affront that Gore (gasp!) released a movie! And even worse, it tried to raise awareness about an issue that could be important to our livelihood! Oh My God! What a devil! Let's attack him mindlessly!
Good lord look at the size of him. I wonder how much gaseous poison Gore is releasing into the air after all the food he eats!
This is getting gory
awwww-I see the CONservative wanna-be oil barons are quaking in their puppy skin boots today!
"Global warming" is caused from gassy solar flares from the sun.
Much like the gassy flares from Al's keister after all the food he packs away.
OK I laughed at a lot of these comments for a number of reasons:
1. Who thinks that they are more educated about the work Al gore has done and its role in promoting long term peace then the board that gives out the award, that studies all the contributions of all the different people.
2. Those who claim that global warming is "fake science" or "false science" let me say that i am a scientist and i believe it is happening. The data is there. 2000 scientists that are experts in the field also agree and have published articles on it many times. I am surrounded by educated scientifically minded people and have only met one person to date who does not see to logic in that data.
3. Who actually thinks that humans do not have an impact on this earth. We abuse our resources. We live for today and as though we are the only species that matters. Even with out data it would take a fool to think this behavior is not having a long term impact.
Oh and lastly to those who say that it is not good science or he would have won a scientific noble prize....you have to do the research to win those awards. He has taken other scientists research and tried to get the word out.
Really some of the responses above are just funny.
Skeptic: "But wait, what about the last ice age? How did that end if humans and SUVs weren't around then?"
Al Gore: "Nothing to see here. Please move along. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
To J from DE:
1. Al Gore doesn't deserve it, and so did many of the previous recipients. I don't know what your point is. And yes, the Peace Prize is getting more farcical every year.
2. I believe it is happening too, but not with anthropogenic origins. It is just very well be natural and we happen to be at the phase of gradual heating. Just remember Greenland: it really used to be green. It's name is not a joke. Do you mind to say what field of science you're in? I am a graduate student with research focus on water chemistry, so I can also be considered a "scientist". But that doesn't qualify me as an expert on climate change. Of that 2000 scientists (are you referring to the IPCC report?), how many of them are climatologists that are actively doing research on GLOBAL climate change?
3. Yes, of course we have an impact on natural environments. Indeed there are millions of environmental problems that we need to tackle as of NOW. Are you sure it's wise to deal with some unproven theory instead of immediate problems (e.g. mercury emission, radioactive waste disposal)?
Why wasn't it the Nobel Prize for science?
What must the rest of the world think when they look at this Country and see that we picked (allegedly) George W Bush for President over this man?
Some of the posters here love referring to the "9 errors" in an Inconvenient Truth (as given by a British judge). But the SAME judge also said it builds a 'powerful' case that global warming is caused by humans and that urgent means are needed to counter it (look it up if you doubt it).
This is what we call cherry picking statements to suit one's biased argument. Focus on part of a judge's comments that fit your biased view; forget the rest of his comments that don't fit your biased view. Agenda accomplished.
Do 9 false assertions destroy the whole argument of global warming? Um....no. To believe that, one would have to be uneducated in research. This is because:
1) The 9 assertions do not negate the many other facts correctly stated by the film that are supported by the VAST majority of scientists. 2) Even if one removes the 9 assertions from the film, this does not provide evidence that Global Warming is NOT happening.
The Voice of Reason.
To all those people who are sceptical about global warming,
Do you really think we are doing our mother earth a favor by our plundering, polluting ways of living? You want a hrd proof, ofcourse you shall have it, but then it will be late, too late.
Here is a guy, who stands up for something, believes in something. And his efforts are recognized in some form, can you be happy for him?
Dont the Republicans take somthing else you diserve away from you. You make us Dems proud Mr. President
The people on here bashing Gore should be ASHAMED of themselves. An American has won the Nobel Peace Prize and you bash him????? SHAME on you!
Can't you get past yourself for one day and congratulate a man that is trying to make a difference?
It's not like he is sending the American army to invade countries over a LIE. He doesn't praise incompetence while Americans die in New Orleans. He doesn't deny children health insurance. He doesn't give rich tax breaks while taxing the poor. He doesn't run up the countries deficit resulting in the devaluation of our currency. He doesn't use Terrorism to spy on fellow Americans.
All that he does is say humans CONTRIBUTE to global warming. For those of you that disagree, please live or work in a landfill for a year and get back to us with your findings (i.e. William Rathje). Once you agree that humans are contributing to global warming then you can agree that global warming make resources more scarce. When resources are scarce it leads to conflict (i.e. WAR).
I just looked it up – this is the "Nobel Prize for best spin of scientific facts into a complete global panic" (for Dummies) – the people who are literate decided to look at both sides of the argument.
Al Gore is to a Nobel Prize winner as is the UN is to a real government.
I am a bioinorganic chemist studying to obtain a Ph.D. and you are correct that does not make me an expert, nor do I claim to be. I have however educated myself enough to know the basics and to know that the data is not false, though i do not claim it is not the entire story. The rate of change is something never seen before (using core samples from ice and rock) and that is of a concern.
I do not know exact numbers (it has been a while since i read it) but the 2000 scientists included scientists from many areas and expertise including climatology. As i am sure you are aware one does not have to be doing active research in an area to be able to understand the science given time and effort.
I agree the problems you mention should be addressed but no more or less then any other climate or environmental problem. The difference is for years people were told it was false and not happening, and even if it is not, we should be concerned about our output. It is time for those people to realize that whether or not it is "fact" or not we should be doing something to correct our impact on this earth.
Lastly, Al gore may not be the "most deserving" but who am I to judge. It is the Nobel prize committees job and we should at least respect their opinions even if we disagree. They have that power and right.
Yippity-yappity, cluckity-clue. I'm tired of Gore, how about you!?
The problem is there are as many reputable scientists that don't support global warming theories and there are serious flaws and questions and issues that don't add up. There is no conclusion yet.