October 16, 2007 at 06:21 AM · Vice President Gore indeed, has won the Noble Peace Prize.
October 16, 2007 at 07:01 AM · We are sick with gore let's talk about the violin!
October 16, 2007 at 07:02 AM · Hey guys I thought that this site (Violinist) was much more interesting than it actually is.
But so far I have just observed looking through the different messages in threads that technical problems (the most important ones) are discussed in a little scientific way and people like much more to talk about persons who don't deserve all this consideration.
October 16, 2007 at 11:11 AM · I think this thread, like it's predecessor, is unfortunately misnamed. Al Gore did not exactly "win the Nobel Peace Prize." He shared the Peace Prize equally with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
I like Bjorn Lomborg's take on the award, as he wrote in the following editorial (Boston Globe, October 13, 2007):
An Inconvenient Peace Prize
Elsewhere Lomborg has stated that the current public discussion about climate change has become a dumping ground, with both sides shouting at each other while accomplishing little-to-nothing. Whether I agree with everything else written by Lomborg or not (I don't), I at least agree with him on that. Like some others here, I was depressed to see the former incarnation of this thread take on those same dumping ground characteristics.
I think the problem comes, again, from not appropriately separating the message from the messenger. Love Gore or hate him, why do we need a celebrity to tell us what to think?
From the last section of Lomborg's editorial:
"Gore has an unshakable faith that climate change is the world's biggest challenge. To be fair, he deserves some recognition for his resolute passion. However, the contrast between the Nobel winners could not be sharper. The IPCC engages in meticulous research where facts rule over everything else. Gore has a different approach."
October 16, 2007 at 06:19 PM · The Nobel Peace Prize has often been shared. A co-winner is still a winner. Karen, I think I know where you come from, but as much as I love and respect science, I don’t need scientists to tell me what to think either. Facts themselves are value-free, but the ways we interpret and frame them to make facts in any way meantingful are always value-laden, diverse and "soft". So it’s a much better world if scientists accept and collaborate with people from other fields to promote peace the best way each sees fit. For this matter, I think this year’s Peace Prize is just right on.
October 16, 2007 at 06:28 PM · Personally, I like Gore and I'm happy that he shared in the prize. I voted for him in 2000 and don't regret it.
My point was not that we need scientists to tell us what to think--it's that we need to act like the scientists and consider the facts for ourselves. In that light, I do think it's unfortunate that so much of the discussion of climate change focuses on irrelevant personal information about Gore.
Of course the Nobel is often shared. But it would be strange if a discussion of the 1962 prize for Physiology or Medicine was called "Wilkins wins Nobel Prize" and no one mentioned Watson or Crick, who shared it with him.
October 16, 2007 at 07:09 PM · Who is Nobel?
October 16, 2007 at 08:41 PM · Nobel was a collegue of mine, a chemist.
Gore is a......?boh?
October 17, 2007 at 12:25 AM · I understand ideal scientists present their findings without injecting personal preference. I don't think science thinks for us. They provide scientific data free of personal agenda for us to think and conclude. I thought that was why meticulous scientific data are invaluable but also colorless, odorless, noiseless. . . in need of Al Gore to dress/spice them up?
Although Nobel prizes have been given for political reasons in the past, I think this time it pushed its limit further and was more proactive than ever. Climate change is a serious problem and it may warrant it. On the other hand, we may need a few venerable organizations to stay away from politics as much as possible to provide guidance in times of confusion. There are too few of those as it is in my opinion.
October 17, 2007 at 05:58 AM · Did someone write hope? is this serious?
I do believe Gore was VP of the Clinton admin, no? So, he would have known a few things, and would have some power/influence? sounds reasonable?
So, let's look at the facts of Clinton and Gore, et al... by reading what John Pilger writes (a famous and noted journalist)...
"In 1993, he (Clinton et al) pursued George H. W. Bush’s invasion of Somalia. He invaded Haiti in 1994. He bombed Bosnia in 1995 and Serbia in 1999. In 1998, he bombed Afghanistan; and, at the height of his Monica Lewinsky troubles, he momentarily diverted the headline writers to a major "terrorist target" in Sudan that he ordered destroyed with an onslaught of missiles. It turned out to be sub-Saharan Africa’s largest pharmaceutical plant, the only source of chloroquine, the treatment for malaria, and other drugs that were lifelines to hundreds of thousands. As a result, wrote Jonathan Belke, then of the Near East Foundation, "tens of thousands of people – many of them children – have suffered and died from malaria, tuberculosis and other treatable diseases."
Long before Shock and Awe, Clinton was destroying and killing in Iraq. Under the lawless pretense of a "no-fly zone," he oversaw the longest allied aerial bombardment since the Second World War. This was hardly reported. At the same time, he imposed and tightened a Washington-led economic siege estimated to have killed a million civilians. "We think the price is worth it," said his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, in an exquisite moment of honesty."
Now, as I recall Gore NEVER went on record to voice ANY opposition to the killings made by his administration. In fact, he was entirely complicit.
I suppose few of you will see the irony here, and the farce of the so-called peace prize. Peace? Hope?
Perhaps a few will take a moment to reflect.
October 17, 2007 at 06:21 AM · Reflect on this.
Tell me what you want to hear, and I'll find a journalist who's said it.
October 17, 2007 at 09:35 AM · Jim: Your note indicates you consider my note to be a fabrication. Clinton did in fact do the things noted, and Gore was in fact the VP. Whether reported by a journalist or not, the facts remain. A review of American media will prove this easily. I do not judge people by my standards, but by theirs. I quote from others, so to emphasize my point and indicate a viewpoint shared by others. Suffice to say, the comments of some people in this thread leave me mightily dismayed. Politics is one thing, but a blind eye to facts is something quite else. I'll let the legal folks explain to you what complicity means in law. Gore is anything but a peace dove.
October 17, 2007 at 10:24 AM · I'm saying it looks like you had a position and hand picked something to support it. You could hand pick another journalist essentially saying the opposite. That's not how to read a newspaper.
October 17, 2007 at 10:25 AM · Ron,
this leads into absurdity. Clinton-Gore were elected by a relative majority of US citizens. At the very end this majority gave them the power and is therefore ultimately responsible for what Clinton-Gore ever did. Therefore going your way would make this relative majority of people not eligible for peace prizes and alike. Actually you should not even give them the honor of your chatting attention.
Did you hear Einstein had battered his first wife quite a few times? So how could he dare to accept the Nobel prize then?
October 17, 2007 at 11:11 AM · Didn't Einstein get the Nobel prize in physics?
October 17, 2007 at 11:26 AM · But Einstein had the wrong answers to infinitely more physics problems than Gore did to Clinton problems. All you gotta have is one really sharp answer :D
October 17, 2007 at 11:18 AM · Yes, battering has certainly to do with physics. At least it's physical. And I wasn't claiming Einstein did actually batter. But what if?
October 17, 2007 at 11:52 AM · "Relative" majority?
I'm no positivist, but it seems to me that majority and minority are absolute conditions, if susceptible to qualification.
October 17, 2007 at 01:25 PM · Absolute majority = more than 50% of the eligible voters
Qualified majority = 50% or more of all the votes counted
Relative majority = more % than any other candidate
Which means: E.g. in a country with 10 parties one may "win" the election with 10.1 % of all the votes counted. And if in this case e.g. only 60% of the people eligible actually voted then the "winning" candidate got slightly over 6% of all the potential votes he could have gotten. THIS I call a relative majority. 6 out of 100 voted for him/her and he/she is the "winner".
October 17, 2007 at 04:57 PM · "All you gotta have is one really sharp answer."
Jim, Actually Einstein had more than one sharp answer in physics. The discovery that won him the nobel prize isn't the most well known one, either. One would think he got the Nobel prize for his theory of relativity. But it was an earlier discovery that got the Nobel prize that light acts like a particle. Life has its twists, doesn't it?
October 17, 2007 at 04:25 PM · I've never heard of a VP trying to counter a president's policies--at least publicly. How would anyone know what Gore did or didn't support concerning Clinton's policies? It's possible he argued against them in private. No way to know for sure.
October 17, 2007 at 11:03 PM · Ihnsouk, that's right. It might have been something to do with the photoelectric effect :) I used to know all this but I've forgotten it. Do you think if he hadn't gotten it for one, he'd gotten it for the other?
October 17, 2007 at 11:57 PM · I don't know. They could have given him two prizes, don't you think?
October 19, 2007 at 06:24 AM · how utterly and sadly true that US VPs do not counter their Pres, nor do they resign. people with guts are no longer born. - except for Watada - now HE should have won the prize.
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Yamaha Violin Finder
Los Angeles Philharmonic
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
Metzler Violin Shop
Juilliard: Starling-Delay Symposium on Violin Studies
ARIA International Summer Academy
Bay Fine Strings Violin Shop
Nazareth Gevorkian Violins
Los Angeles Violin Shop
Pro-Am Strings Ltd
Wangbow Violin Bow Workshop