Should Al Gore give the Nobel prize back for being a counterfeit?

Question

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

Lorne Gunter, National Post

Published: Monday, February 25, 2008

Climate change could be the next subprime meltdown

Most of country coping with winter storms

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them. There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market.

Answer 1

There are still people who think the earth is flat too.

How much evidence does it take to convince these cretins?

Answer 2

Just like the Y2K scare, the Asian bird flu, Global warming is just another hoax. Gore has always been a fraud, a liar, and a joke. If he has any decency he should give the Nobel money back and publicly acknowledge that he is a fraud and counterfeit.

Answer 3

I won't get a 'best answer' because you already make it clear that you have a side and your own answer within your question.  

This is a yes or no question but neither has a chance of being correct.

If the question is, "Is Al Gore a phoney?"  that could possibly work, you would just have be specific as to phoney about what, surely he isn't "fake" as in a robot or something.

If the question is "Should Al Gore give his Nobel Prize back?"  That would depend on whether there's a reason why he should.

But instead, you rather stated... "Al Gore is a counterfeit, so should he give his Noble Prize back?"  How do you know he's a counterfeit, and what does that mean exactly?

So this question leaves no where for anyone to go unless they can agree with you that Al Gore is an imposter or a false prophet or something.

But Global Warming is bigger than one person.  And I saw his film too, and since then, I have seen countless examples of what he talked about in other films, magazines, etc.  

The reason he got the prize was because global warming has been widely accepted to be a real problem.  Not just by Al Gore (and his supposed followers) but by people who are researching these things and coming up with their own conclusions which collaborate all the key issues in Al Gore's film.

I predict that 20 years from now, we'll be regretting not having started doing something sooner.

Those who voted to give Al Gore the prize, did so under the premise that this problem is real (based on their own research) and concluded that Al Gore was on target with the problem, how we know it exists, it is getting worse and why we must act now.  They recognize Al Gore as being a major voice in getting the entire world to realize it.  And because of him, a lot of positive things are being developed, sooner rather than later.

Doesn't matter what he's selling... The Nobel Peace Prize Committee believes Global Warming is real.  That make Al Gore a significant candidate for 'their' prize, given all that he has done to raise awareness.  Ghandi believed the world needed more peace… He got that message out very well.  Things like that are typically worthy of a 'Nobel Peace Prize'… It is what it is.

If they believe it's real, and the world body of Science believes it's real [1]... then Al Gore is not a counterfeit... otherwise, they are all counterfeits... that’s just way too many counterfeits.   How is it possible this many people can be wrong?  Why would so many put their reputation as stake if they really didn't believe it for themselves?

Answer 4

There is just as much Scientific opinion that  OVERWHELMING disputes that global warming is a significant/valid fact. You shouldn't cherry pick the bits that back your favorite ideas as well. -Explain then why some of the worse weather relates natural Catastrophes in the history of the world took place before human over population, factories, cars, airplanes, industry was even present on the planet.

--Explain why there were more category 4-5 hurricanes in the U.S. Gulf states from 1900-1950 (before human over population, factories, cars, airplanes, massive industry was even present in the U.S. than from 1950 to present date..

Answer 5

There is no OVERWHELMING scientific evidence of global warming, except for lefty politician, lobbyists and mad scientists.  The real scientists know that it's a hoax, and have know this all along.

Yeah, Al Gore MUST give back the NOBEL prize, or better still...NOBEL should withdraw it.  Al Gore's dad should have worn a condom.

Answer 6

I think that prize was bought and paid for as the Nobel Committee is dependent on donations.

They should consider changing their name though because it's misleading.  Maybe the Nobel purchase instead of Nobel prize.

Answer 7

I think in the next 20 years a lot of people are going to feel really stupid about their die-hard belief in man-made global warming. Or on the other hand, it may take another ice age. Even then they may not admit their wrong, but they won't be doing it in shorts. Yes, Al should have never got the Peace prize in the first place. In my eyes, it's really hurt the integrity of that organization.

Answer 8

This is, frankly, nonsense. Scientific opinion is OVERWHELMING that global warming is a significant fact, the only real debate is over its extent. A tiny minority chooses insignificant details to argue that the whole thing is false. Yes, maybe there is more snow somewhere this year, nothing in global warming theory says there can't be. The point is that it is GLOBAL warming. That affects climate, cloud cover, wind, rainfall, even ocean currents and more. Locally, global warming can result in plummeting temperatures. If the gulf stream diverts southwards, or stops altogether, the UK will be in for a serious chill, temporarily, until the whole planet has heated enough for it not to matter.

People also say that the carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases humanity has liberated into the atmosphere are tiny compared to that from cows, volcanoes, etc. But don't forget this is in addition to the 'natural' contribution. We've not yet found a way to switch volcanoes off!

If the subject interests you (and it should) read as much as you can from ALL the research with an open mind, don't cherry-pick the bits that back your favourite idea. You'll find mountains of hard fact to counter any sceptic's molehills of doubt.