Home / Gore Gets Ginormous [Global] “Green” Light

Gore Gets Ginormous [Global] “Green” Light

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., former congressman and former vice president and almost president of the United States, as he likes to quip, awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on October 12th. This season there were some 181 candidates for the prize, but Al Gore shared “it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations network of scientists.” Here is a comprehensive list of all Nobel Prize winners and as one can see by this list that Gore is in lofty company then and now. Not only was he in competition this year with nearly 200 other applicants—he prevailed.

It seemed odd, at first hearing, almost a netroots rumor that he was nominated, unbelievable.

Unbelievable, that Gore's "green" message of human-caused global warming gets a ginormous green light, almost global beacon, to illuminate dark corners and aid those who wish to erase their carbon footprint in the world, thanks to the Nobel Prize committee. Unbelievable, because I thought that the Peace prize was more about peace [stopping wars] and less about the personality behind the truth, more about those who foster peace in the world, inlcuding in every aspect of their public lives. Unbelieveable, because I thought courage a prerequisite to the prize, and Gore did exhibit it by standing up to derision and scorn while staying on message. Unbelievable–yes, and no. Thus, with this win I am inclined to believe that the Swedish committee got it right, but did they?

"Such an award would fall under the expanded concept of peace but the activity can be linked to the climate-conflict combination and is highly timely," said NRK veteran journalist Geir Helljesen who has a solid record of tipping prize winners."

It seems that they too had something to gain, wanted to get on the bandwagon or both. The above statement confirms what I thought must be a new definition or an expanded category for “peace.” The Committee has therefore preempted its own criticism by choosing Gore. Not only has the confines of the prize been expanded but it also gives thought, and new meaning, to its own "reputation," another surprise.

By and large, however, the Norwegian Nobel Committee's selections have contributed steadily to enhancing the reputation of the Peace Prize. Some names of course stand out more than others: Woodrow Wilson (1919), Fridtjof Nansen (1922), Carl von Ossietzky (1935), Albert Schweitzer (1952), Dag Hammarskjõld (1961), Martin Luther King, Jr. (1964), Andrei Sakharov (1975), Mother Teresa (1979), Mikhail Gorbachev (1990), and Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk (1993). Nansen is one of two Norwegians to receive the Prize. The other is Christian Lange (1921). That the Committee is from a small country and has so rarely rewarded its own countrymen has probably also contributed to the high international status of the Prize.

Interesting choice of words by Gier Lundestad, secretary of the committee,  who wrote that "the reputation" of the prize will be enhanced by awarding it to great people. So, in choosing Al Gore, Jr., this peace prize committee (there are over 100 other lesser known ones according to this article) is vindicated in its final choice of style over substance. 

While this may be the most prestigious peace prize, is it omnipotent? What exactly are its limits on world influence and peace provocation worldwide?

Lundestad cites an example of its limitations: "The Peace Prize to Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991 is a good example of what the Prize can contribute and of its limitations." Not only was she not removed from house arrest, but this summer protesting and tear-gassed Burma's Buddhist monks, and its people, have taken to the streets to protest the "repressive military junta."  By contrast, there has been recent pro-junta support. However, I would like to think that the 1991 prize emboldened the Burmese monks and people, who supported the much-respected monks. In other words, sometimes things get worse before they get better.

What a contrast between 1991 and 2007's winners: This year's winner is 16 years later. This year's winner is a former vice president, and almost-president. This year's winner is Mr. Al Gore, the "Goracle." This year's winner has an Oscar for his 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth created from a Power Point presentation. Gore said he dusted it off at the insistence of his wife, during an at-home interview, based on his best-selling book by the same name. This year's winner is a big deal. And in breaking news, is not without parental protest. Expectations were in line that he was poised to win! Expectations and life breathed into hope that he would, with prize in hand, announce at the podium his candidacy for president. That did not happen, nor is it a likely event. What else can one say but "congratulations" for work well done and well received?

Finally, what possible outcomes from this prize might we witness? Here are five:

  1. White light shined on "green" issue
  2. Tsunami of effort by regular people to understand "global warming" that its message will be taught as well as caught.
  3. Global warming will get worse before it gets better.
  4. Individual control over carbon footprints (as meme) will increase to critical mass.
  5. Nobel Peace Prize enjoys increased prominence and importance.
Powered by

About Heloise

  • Heloise, and Mr Bambenek in the other piece on this topic, wonder why the award was given for work having nothing to do with peace.

    I would think that since many of the next hundred years’ wars are likely to be fought over diminishing water supplies and liveable land, giving the world an Oscar-winning wake-up call would qualify comfortably. Yes?

  • JustOneMan

    Outcomes from this prize might we witness? Here are five:

    1. Al Gwhore will gain 100 pounds from all of the clebration parties he will attend flying around the globe in his provate jet leaving a carbon foot print bigger than Elizabeth NJ.

    2. The Gwhore Morons who still cant accept that Gwhore is a dullard and the worlds biggest loser will have a few more glimering seconds of hope!

    3. Global warming will get warmer before it gets cooler before it gets warm again before it cooler…as it has for the past 100,000 years.

    4. Individual control over carbon footprints will increase to critical mass and still the liberal left will drive in their SUVs to their second homes to drive their power boats while lecturing us poor slobs to flush the toilet once per day and change our light bulbs!.

    5. The Nobel Peace Prize is relagated to nothing more that a “hate america” “hate bush” bowling trophy that is insignificant to most rational thinkers.

    Liberals dont allow critical thinking…they demand that we all accept Gwhores nonsense as fact..


  • Joe

    Dr Dreadful I would think that since many of the next hundred years’ wars are likely to be fought over diminishing water supplies and liveable land, giving the world an Oscar-winning wake-up call would qualify comfortably. Yes?

    No. That’s like “forgiveness is better then permission.” You can’t explain away the prize committee’s dick-sucking of a man who has nothing to offer but rhetoric with an after-the-fact explanation.

    I won’t mention the article above – Heloise is obviously so deluded she wishes she was on the prize committee herself so she could bestow the “honor.”

  • You can’t explain away the prize committee’s dick-sucking of a man who has nothing to offer but rhetoric with an after-the-fact explanation.

    No. What Gore has to offer is name recognition attached to a widely-distributed and award-winning movie. He’s done more to promote awareness of global warming than anyone else I can think of.

    But ooooh, no. He’s Al Gore. Therefore, the Nobel Committee are dicksuckers.

    How are those grapes tasting?

  • Lee Richards

    America used to represent the highest ideals of peace, liberty, the search for justice, and national unity to the rest of the world.

    In this century that’s pretty much been erased by wrongheadedness and greed, so I’m glad to see any American recognized for any effort that’s in any way associated with peace, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  • JustOneMan


    Gwhore had a “widely-distributed and award-winning movie” so he deserves a Nobel Prize??

    Ok Based upon your logic here are other movies just as deserving of a Nobel Prize

    1. The Sponge Bob Movie
    2. Debbie Does Dallas
    3. Deep Throat
    4. Xanadu
    5. The Adventures Of Pluto Nash
    6. Caddyshack 2
    7. Scooby Doo
    8. Ernest – Scared Stupid – A perfect one for Fat Al to do a remake of – Gwhore- Scared Stupid

    I could go on…


    PS Gwhore lost the election and is an international embarasment!

  • JustOneMan


    Do us a favor..stop you phony bullshit and either do something about it of just leave the country..

    You Dumbocrats complain but dont offer any solutions besides “impeach bush”…


  • JOM –

    None of your movies are documentaries, you blockheaded moron.

    I hope you’re not a shooter. If you miss targets as widely as you habitually miss the point, I fear for the safety of those living in the next town.

  • Clavos

    Waitaminnit, Doc.

    A case can be made that Debbie Does Dallas and Deep Throat are educational films for young women, which would make them a type of documentary, n’est-ce-pas?

  • Stay out of this, Clav, or I’ll have to set Roger Ebert on you…


  • Wait – what if JOM is Roger Ebert…?

  • JustOneMan

    Dread..oh yee of low intellect!

    More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder..Al Gwhores movie has been proven NOT TO BE A documentary but pure fiction…Gwhores movie is no more real and credible than Spinal Tap…


  • Clavos

    OK, OK, it was just a thought.

    [Roger Ebert–sheesh…]

  • “Proven”, o unicellular cerebral one? By whom? Show us this amazing “proof”.

    And he calls me “of low intellect”. Shit – he can’t even spell “ye”…

  • JustOneMan


  • Or “yawn”.

  • JustOneMan


  • Yes, quite the intellectual heavyweight, isn’t he?

  • JustOneMan

    “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I rest my case”

    Dread – “I fart in your general direction!”


  • And now, legal news. The case of Sourgrapes v. Gore collapsed today when the prosecutor, Solamente Unombre, rose to present his closing argument and said – precisely nothing.

    After the verdict was announced, Unombre was led frothing at the mouth from the courtroom by bailiffs. At his press conference in a padded cell at the Rightold State Mental Health Facility later, Unombre demanded that the judge declare a mistrial on the grounds that because he is Solamente Unombre, he is automatically right and therefore not obliged to present any evidence.

    He later farted in the general direction of this reporter, who has that T-shirt already.

  • Clavos


    Tag, you’re “it,” Doc….

  • “Unbelievable, that Gore’s “green” message of human-caused global warming gets a ginormous green light, almost global beacon”

    I thought that said global bacon. Got my hopes up for nothin’.

    Who’ll win the Nobel Bacon Prize?

  • Oy.

    My espelling in Espanish he correct now, a language I do not even espeak.

  • Clavos

    Whatchoo mean you no espeaka espanish?

    joo heb de eccent!

  • No, señor, you mistake. I espeak Californian.

  • JustOneMan

    Oh Nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

    WASHINGTON (AP) – Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize hasn’t translated into an increase in support for a presidential bid, a poll found Tuesday.
    Asked if they would like to see the former vice president run for president in 2008, people said no by a 54 percent to 41 percent margin, according to a Gallup Poll. That was about the same as last March, when people opposed his running 57 percent to 38 percent.

    Even among Democrats there was no visible surge of interest in Gore. In the new survey, 48 percent said they would like him to run and 43 percent said they would not. Last March, Democrats were in favor of him entering the race 54 percent to 41 percent—statistically the same as the new poll

    Gee 60% think Gwhores a loser!!1


  • JustOneMan

    Wutch yo talkun about muth fucka..we be talkin ebonics in here..non o dat spanish talkin

  • That means Al Gore has 40 percent support? Goddamn, that’s pretty good for not being a candidate.

  • JustOneMan


    Thank you for great example of left wing math..what it states is 40% would like to see him run..NOT VOTE for him..

    But at 40% he still is a big FAT LOSER!


  • You know, in that same hunk o’ poll results, 58 percent of those polled have a favorable opinion of Al Gore.

    You’re not good at this.

  • Lee Richards

    Pretty clever of the DNC/ACLU/socialist commie liberals/Al Gore conspiracy to invent a rabid right-wing villain they call Solamente Unombre, and to post this far-out fictional character’s hate-filled, empty-headed, prejudiced and pointless garbage here in order to make their opponents sound like deranged, drooling, hairy-knuckled Neanderthals!

    It’s working.

  • schuhbox4

    I’d have to think Oscar Meyer has the lead in the Nobel Prize for Bacon award. That guy’s done some amazing work.
    You guys need to give JOM a break. How is he supposed to believe in global warming if the NRA and Fox news don’t tell him to? After all, it’s “proven” to be untrue!!!!
    By the way, did I miss something? Since when did the stereotype change to the Democrats being the party of the rich?
    As for JOM, there seems to be only one person on this message board obsessed with Al Gore. Give you one guess who it is.

  • schuhbox4

    This was actually my problem with Gore doing An Inconvenient Truth. Too many people with the mental fluidity of concrete would see his name and immediately reject anything he had to say. He could have made a video declaring water to be wet and some people would argue he was wrong.

  • Clavos

    “This was actually my problem with Gore doing An Inconvenient Truth. Too many people with the mental fluidity of concrete would see his name and immediately reject anything he had to say.”

    And then there are those of us who reject what he has to say about GW on the basis of his faulty science, not his name; “mental fluidity” notwithstanding.

  • Clavos