Friday, October 12, 2007

Gore shares the Nobel prize

This morning former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the Nobel Peace Prize for their work bringing attention to global warming. For Gore, the award caps a great year in which he won an Oscar and numerous other awards for his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore promptly announced that he would donate his half of the $1.5 million prize (corrected, please see below) to The Alliance for Climate Protection.

Gore's story is a remarkable and inspiring one. After the close defeat to George Bush in 2000, Gore could have easily fallen into a state of bitterness and completely withdrawn from the public stage. Instead, he almost immediately began teaching. He also dedicated himself to his long-held interests in technology and climate issues.

The documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, contains elements of the global warming presentation that Gore has been making and honing for many years. It also shows Gore during his travels and contains personal snippets that show how he has come to terms with the 2000 loss.

While Gore's winning the Nobel Prize is a fantastic achievement that all Americans should be proud of, his strength in overcoming the loss and finding a different avenue for leadership is the real achievement.

The original post said "that he would donate half of his prize." Thank you to Ged Maheux for pointing out the error in the original post. Corrected Oct. 12, 11:42 a.m.


Gedeon Maheux said...

Couldn't agree with you more. He is a great example of how someone effects change from without instead of from within. His critics will have a field day with him for this, but in the end it doesn't matter. All he cares about is the message. There is no such thing as bad PR.

Bubba said...

Fluff and Puff it up a little more, Dave.

Don't even mention the nine major errors that the propaganda piece commits.

It's all just more Business as Usual for the True Believers.

No big surprise.

By the way, do you know what he plans to do with the rest of the money?

Perhaps buy more carbon offsets from himself?

Dave Ribar said...


Thanks for the comment. Nice post on your site.


You reveal how bent your perspective is when you criticize the guy for "only" giving $750,000 away.

Your post reminds me of an academic joke that I heard some time ago.


An assistant professor, a department chair, and a dean go out in a rowboat fishing one morning. When they've rowed about half a mile from shore, the dean suddenly remembers that he left his tackle back at the dock.

The assistant professor says "no problem," steps over the side of the boat, and starts walking on the water back toward the dock.

When the assistant professor is out of earshot, the department chair leans over to the dean and says, "Now that's the kind of guy that we want to tenure."

The dean snaps back, "Whaddaya mean, he can't even swim."


It's too bad that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge anything positive about Gore or his accomplishments. It really reveals a lot.


Gedeon Maheux said...

Gore is not donating "half" of the money he won, he's donating 100% of *his half* of the prize. The IPCC must decide what to do with their half.

Dave Ribar said...


Thanks; I'll post a correction.

Anonymous said...


I've read most of the information that you pointed me at earlier -- thank you BTW.

There's some major flaws in Gore's argument(s.) I never see these errors discussed, debated, or even addressed. He's had more than a few offers to debate the issue with some real experts on climate change and he's not willing to step up to the challenge. If the Gore vision on climate change is really based on "settled science" why won't he debate it?


Dave Ribar said...


Why should he debate opponents that are likely to follow an OJ-or tobacco-type defense? We already see the critics strategy in the cut-and-paste, out-of-context video that the Homeland Institute has prepared.

The place for a proper debate about the numbers and the science is before a group like the NAS and before editors and expert peer-reviewers of scientific journals. That debate is taking place and is refining our understanding of the science.

If the anti-warming case is so compelling, it doesn't need a co-appearance with Gore. The opponents want a legitimacy to their arguments that they just can't quite seem to get on their own.

Bubba said...

"The opponents want a legitimacy to their arguments that they just can't quite seem to get on their own."

You are actually serious when you say that, aren't you Dave?

Talk about "denial".....

WAY too funny!

Dave Ribar said...


The opponents are free to make their best case. If their case is compelling, it will catch on.

As you know, there already was a very public debate that was held in 1998 between James Hansen and Patrick Michaels. A copy of the transcript is available here (note that several of the organizations that are inviting a "debate" are offering Michaels' services again).

During the debate, Michaels engaged in half-truths and distortions. Why should the Gore or others give him a stage to do it again.

The place where the true scientific debate will be settled will be in peer-reviewed journals and independent expert panels like the NAS. Michaels and company just don't seem to be making much headway there.

Doug Johnson said...

I love Gore for inventing the internet. Dr. Gray speaks my opinion. Gore speaks for his pocket book. I still recovering from gobal freezing.