| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
eefanincan
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Canada
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | There will be wars over dwindling resources and land caused by global warming - I think that's the reasoning. |
OK --- I see where you're coming from. I think it's a bit of a stretch, but I get it. I suppose there are worse people it could have been given to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| eefanincan wrote: | | I suppose there are worse people it could have been given to. |
Yep .. could have been given to Hilary Clinton for trying her utter utter best to restrain "the boss"'s war mongering crusades.
The more I think about this awful decision, the more I think that this whole film is a "guilt trip" to make people feel guilty that what is happening round the world with these natural disasters are their "collective" fault, and thus not the governments who diverted money from the dams (or other flood or surface water drainage projects) to warfare (whilst allowing these same governments to raise taxation from the masses to further fund those wars) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Hot air is the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | There will be wars over dwindling resources and land |
i think that might already be happening ... i guess the 'reasons' given change, but the real reason is really always the same ... control > power > profit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kezza
Gone To The Dogs!
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | Hot air is the problem. |
AMEN to that!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Quote: | October 12, 2007
A Grand Misjudgment
Gore's Peace Prize
By JAN OBERG
Nagoya, Japan.
The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize - particularly the part to Al Gore - is a populist choice that cannot but devalue the Prize itself.
Alfred Nobel wrote in his will that the Peace Prize should be awarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
Without diminishing the importance of global warming and the work done by this year's recipients - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) and Al Gore Jr. - it is highly disputable whether it qualifies as a PEACE prize in the spirit of Alfred Nobel - even if interpreted in the contemporary world situation and not that of 1895 when Nobel formulated his vision.
The concept and definition of peace should indeed be broad. But neither of the recipients have made contributions that can match thousands of other individuals and NGOs who devote their lives to fighting militarism, nuclearism, wars, reducing violence, work for peacebuilding, tolerance, reconciliation and co-existence - the core issues of the Nobel Peace Prize.
It is also regrettable that the Prize rewards government-related work, rather than civil society - Non-Governmentals, making the implicit point that governments rather than the people make peace.
In particular, Al Gore - as vice-president under Bill Clinton between 1993 and 2001 was never heard or seen as a peace-maker. Clinton-Gore had a crash program for building up US military facilities and made military allies all around Russia - and missed history's greatest opportunity for a new world order.
In contravention of international law and without a UN Security Council mandate, they bombed Serbia and Kosovo, based on an extremely deficient understanding of Yugoslavia and propaganda about genocide that has caused the miserable situation called Kosovo today (likely to blow up this year or the next), and they bombed in Afghanistan and Sudan.
The Prize would have been linked to the environment if it has been awarded to someone who struggles against military or other violent influence on the global environment: military pollution, thousands of bases and exercises destroying nature, deliberate environmental warfare, militarization of space and the oceans, and - of course - nuclear weapons that, if used, would create more heat than global warming.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee's consists of members who have little background, if any, in the theory and practise of peace. That however can not be an excuse for making a mockery of peace and the Prize itself.
The prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize has been further reduced today - adding to the disgrace that it never rewarded Gandhi but people like Kissinger, Shimon Peres, and Arafat.
Jan Oberg is director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research in Lund, Sweden. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
i didn't know a lot of this stuff, i only really heard of gore when he won the election that bush and his crew stole
| Quote: | Al Gore's Peace Prize
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
Put this one up on the shelf of shame, right next to Henry Kissinger's, or the peace prize they gave to Kofi Annan and the entire UN in 2001, sandwiched between the UN's okay for the bombing of Serbia, the killing of untold numbers of Iraqis, many of them babies and children in the years of sanctions, and its greenlight for the bombing of Baghdad in 2003. In 1998 the Nobel crowd gave the prize to Medecins Sans Frontieres, whose co-founder Bernard Kouchner is now France's foreign secretary urging the bombing of Iran. Like Gore, Kouchner was a rabid advocate of the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia and onslaughts on Serbia.
The UN often has an inside track on the "Peace" prize. The UN Peace-Keeping Forces got it in 1988. In 1986 another enthusiast for attacking Iraq and Iran, Elie Wiesel, carried off the trophy. Aside from Kissinger, probably the biggest killer of all to have got the peace prize was Norman Borlaug, whose "green revolution" wheat strains led to the death of peasants by the million.
When Gore goes to get the prize he shares with the pr hucksters and falsifiers at the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Gore should be forced to march through a gauntlet of widows and orphans, Serbs, Iraqis, Palestinians, Colombians, and other victims of the Clinton era.
Back in Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign Gore was told to earn his keep with constant pummeling of George Bush Sr for having been soft on Saddam. Gore duly criss-crossed the country yoking Saddam and Bush in fervid denunciation, his press aides passing out speeches flatteringly footnoted with references to the work of the journalists covering his campaign. Gore charged that Bush had given Saddam "one of those milquetoast routines George Bush is so famous for". "The cover-up of Bush's arming of Saddam was", Gore shouted, "bigger than Watergate ever was." Right before the 2000 election Gore called for expansion of the no-fly zones in Iraq and said that any Iraqi plane venturing into such zones should be shot down.
In early January, 1993, Thomas Friedman interviewed president elect Clinton and asked about Saddam. Clinton amiably responded, "I always tell everybody, I'm a Baptist. I believe in deathbed conversions. If he wants a different relationship with the US and UN, all he has to do is change his behavior." This elicited cries of outrage from the national security establishment, and its prime respresentative, vice president-elect Gore, who announced that there could never be normal relations with Iraq so long as Saddam remained in power. He reiterated the call for a coup, if not by the Iraqi military then by the CIA (which in point of fact had been in receipt of a 'presidential finding' from Bush, three months after the guns of the Gulf War fell silent, authorizing it 'to create conditions for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power').
Vice president Al Gore was then given authority in the Clinton Administration for Iraq policy. On April 14, 1993, Bush went to Kuwait, whose regime duly arrested 17 people charged with plotting to kill Bush with a bomb placed in a Toyota Landcruiser.
Again the national security establishment mustered in support of a plan to hold Saddam accountable and bombard Baghdad, a plan hotly advocated by Gore and his national security advisor, Leon Feurth. The two individuals most reluctant to endorse this plan were Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. "Do we have to take this action?" Clinton muttered to his national security team as the cruise missiles on two carriers in the Persian Gulf were being programmed.
Eight of the 23 missiles hit the residential Mansour suburb of Baghdad, one of them killing Leila al-Attar, a prominent Iraqi artist. According to Clinton's pollster Stan Greenberg, the bombing of Baghdad caused an uptick of 11 points in Clinton's popularity, a lesson Clinton and Gore did not forget. Years later, in the 2000 campaign, Gore out-hawked George Bush Jr on the subject of finishing the job in Iraq.
On June 29, 2000, Gore was in Chicago to talk about "energy policy incentives for cities". Danny Muller of Voices in the Wilderness went to Navy Pier, where the event was being held. Gore was at the podium amid wild ovations. Muller remembers the scene: "I raised my voice and asked 'Mr. Gore, why should anyone vote for an administration that kills 5,000 innocent children a month through sanctions in Iraq?' Gore stopped. And he laughed. He actually laughed. He said he would discuss this later in the day. I responded by saying that every ten minutes a child dies in Iraq due to sanctions and we do not have the time to wait."
Muller was still protesting as Gore's security goons hauled him off.
The specific reason why this man of blood shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC is for their joint agitprop on the supposed threat of anthropogenic global warming. Bogus science topped off with toxic alarmism. It's as ridiculous as as if Goebbels got the Nobel Peace Prize in 1938, sharing it with the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for his work in publicizing the threat to race purity posed by Jews, Slavs and gypsies. (The peace prize actually went that year to the Nansen Committee for Refugees. Gore certainly played his part in creating Iraq's current 4 million refugees, among the greatest displacements of the past hundred years.)
The notorious "man-made" greenhouse gasses comprise about .26 per cent of the total greenhouse gas component of the earth's atmosphere and the influence of this component remains entirely unproven, as I have pointed out on this site many times,and will be doing so again in reflections that will be published early next year in my forthcoming book, A Short History of Fear. Gore's contribution to the debate has been an appalling mishmash of cooked statistics, demagoguery about "scientific consensus" and New Age hocus pocus about spiritual renewal. Anyone who has studied the antics of his co-winner of the peace prize, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will know that the IPCC's prime role every three years has been to ignore the work--some of it respectable scientific research--of its expert panels and issue entirely mendacious and to issue alarmist press releases designed to win headlines in the New York Times.
Of course Al Gore has been a shil for nuclear power ever since he came of age as a political harlot for the Oakridge nuclear laboratory in his home state of Tennessee. The practical beneficiary of the baseless hysteria over "anthropogenic global warming" is the nuclear power industry. This very fall, as Peter Montague describes at length in our current CounterPunch newsletter, this industry is reaping the fruits of Al Gore's campaigning. Congress has finally knocked aside the regulatory licensing processes that have somewhat protected the public across recent decades. The starting gun has sounded, and just about the moment Gore and his co-conspirators at the IPCC collect their prizes, the bulldozers will be breaking ground for the new nuclear plants soon to spring like Amanita phalloides--just as deadly--across the American landscape. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eefanincan
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | Hot air is the problem. |
You hit the nail on the head! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skylace
Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/KxqhwZGefc4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/KxqhwZGefc4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Mandy, The Sydney Morning Herald seems to be owned by Murdoch, and considering the smear tactics against Ron Paul in Australia by News International, doesn't it strike you as notable that they're attacking Gore too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Thanks faceless .. Murdoch's support for Bush / Giuliani could definitely be a reason why this article was published.
Regarding "a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place." : I have heard of this theory and instinctively I don't agree with it. Sounds like a paper tiger argument where in a few months time someone will show the salt in the oceans doesn't correlate to temperature .. and anyone who believed in the article will look stupid. [this is along the same lines as the "no planers" hitting the World Trade Center).
I wonder why the article didn't even mention the more likely theory of the sun being more active. Clearly the paper wasn't trying to be helpful in the debate |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Couchtripper - 2005-2015
|
