Friday, October 12, 2007

Peace Prize?

So Al Gore won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize? I remember when they used to award this honor to those who fought against war and tried to make peace in the world.

Gore, who could easily win the U.S. Presidency next year were he to run, is, to me, the Hal Lindsey of the 21st century. Lindsey, author of The Late, Great Planet Earth, was the dispensationalist par excellence of the 1970s. His book, like all of dispensational premillenialism (and much of fundamentalism in general), was intended to scare people into making a decision. It wasn't meant to be a discussion, a dialogue, or a valid attempt to convince; Lindsey was out to frighten people.

That's really what Al Gore and his Global Warming movement are all about. They want to scare people into making a decision. Lindsey believed that the tactic was acceptable because the stakes were so high; Gore believes the same of his tactics. Lindsey may well have been correct in many ways (though I personally find dispensationalism to be thoroughly unbiblical); Gore may turn out to be correct as well (though many scientists believe the theory is about as valid as dispensational theology).

I don't care for the methods used by either man. I don't want to frighten people into the Kingdom, even though the stakes are quite high. So, I'm a little disappointed that the Nobel folks chose to reward the tactic of frightening people. On the other hand, maybe it shouldn't bother me at all...Halloween is just a few weeks away.

14 comments:

John said...

Are you doubting the wisdom of the man who alerted us to the menace of Manbearpig?

John Meunier said...

I certainly accept the argument that there are other folks who have done more to bring peace today. There are likely more deserving candidates.

But, unless you believe climate change was invented by wackos to promote solar energy, it is pretty clear that big shifts in global climate will lead to all kinds of suffering and outright war over resources.

As for his tactics, I'm not sure how to respond. He - and others - have been talking about these issues for decades. Maybe there is a more sedate way to talk about the issue, but so far an awfully lot of people are happy to ignore it.

Some of us don't get serious about dieting until we have a heart attack at 45.

Jeff Kahl said...

Keith -

I see Gore's tactic as illustrative of the Left's hypocrisy:

They have disdain for anyone who tries to force his or her worldview on others, unless of course it is the worldview of the Left.

If a conservative Christian preaches with as much zeal and outrage about abortion or homosexuality as Gore does about the environment, that person is generally vilified in the media.

When Gore does the same thing, he's awarded a Nobel Prize.

The Left hates zealousness in any forms, unless it is a zealousness for the Left (or a zealousness against America).

Cheers................

John Meunier said...

Jeff, a fair point.

So, then, it is wrong to criticize Gore's zeal, yes?

Jeff Kahl said...

Absolutely. Gore can zealously support any position on any issue he wants. So can Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, and Barbara Streisand. It's called freedom of speech, and I'm all for it.

But opposing view points should also be heard, considered, and respected, not arrogantly dismissed as being "right-wing," "out of the mainstream," or "radical."

And ALL sides should be open to public debate, to have their positions critiqued on the facts, and honestly be willing to change when a flaw is perceived...rather than emotionally denouncing anyone who has the balls to think for themselves.

A perfect example: I remember when Hillary Clinton first announced her candidacy for President, and was asked to make an appearance on Hannity and Colmes of Fox News. She agreed to do so, but ONLY with Colmes (the liberal). She refused to appear if Hannity would be present.

Apparently she is only comfortable being questioned by other liberals (who share her fundamental views) and not conservatives (who would tear her apart and may just expose some of the holes in her agenda).

Kevin said...

With all due respect, I think you guys are putting WAY too much thought into this. The fact is that Al Gore sees what he believes to be a real threat, and has taken action to encourage others to make a positive change. Bottom line: global warmng is real. There is very little debate on that. I admit that there has been plenty of debate on how much of it is a man-made issue and how much is part of the Earth's natural cycle, but in the final analysis Gore is not promoting anything harmful. What he is promoting can only help our world, and at it's worst woud still cause no problems. Stop focusing on being so negative. There is no "libera; agenda" at work here. He's a good man trying to do good works. It begins and ends there.

Keith McIlwain said...

But the tactic of frightening people to communicate your issue, whether used by Lindsey or Gore - both of whom may be well meaning - is, in my view, unworthy of a "peace prize".

Jeff Kahl said...

Kevin -

In my opinion, the very fact that you said "there is very little debate" about global warming is my proof that there IS a liberal agenda. The bottom line is, several scientists respectfully disagree with Gore's conclusions, but you never hear their side of the story in the media.

Keith -

Forgive the "devil's advocate tactic," but when Jesus said to the Pharisees, "You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?", could that not be interpreted as frightening people to communicate His issue? Or when Jesus made clear that the unrighteous would be banished into eternal punishment? I'm not saying I agree with Gore... I'm just trying to understand why the scare tactic is so offensive to you. To me, the issue shouldn't be the method of communicating at all...it should be whether the content of that communication is true or false.

Kevin said...

See, here's the problem. There are very, very few scientists that DO dispute global warming. A few outsiders, maybe. But the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that this IS happening. Sure, they debate the extent of human involvement in the climate, but very few deny that this is happening. The few that do deny the idea of global warming altogether get prominent coverage from extreme Right news outlets, but they are in an incredibly shrinking minority. These are just facts, and those facts led to Gore recieving the honor he has been given.

Unlike the almost-mythical "far left agenda," the extremists on the Right do have an agenda on this issue, clearly seen in everthing from doubting Gore's worthiness, doubting the idea of global warming itself, or even using pictures of Gore like the one on this very blog. People full of hate on the Far Right. Nut jobs.

It's like a scene from the film Jaws. While the Mayor lives in denial of the shark problem despite people dying in front of him (like those who deny Global warming), Hooper (much like Gore)exclaims that the Mayor won't admit the problem until it swims up and "bites you on the ass!"

Those on the Right are certainly free to live in denial, but it doesn't change the truth. And, more to the point, it doesn't change to noble intentions of Al Gore, who, let's face it, could cure cancer but still be put down by extremists on the right. Shame on anyone who doesn't applaud, if not his beliefs, then atleast his selfless efforts and calls them "scare tactics" (which is a silly assertion to anyone who has read his books, heard his lectures, or seen his film).

Jeff Kahl said...

I would say that a person who calls Al Gore "selfless" and who sees no liberal bias in the mainstream media is the one living in denial.

If Al Gore is truly selfless, why doesn't he give all that money he earned from "An Inconvenient Truth" to the cause of the environment instead of buying SUV's and flying in private jets?

And as for liberal bias, you should read Bernard Golberg's book "Arrogance" some time. I'm more than willing to admit that there's a conservative tilt in certain aspects of FOX news or The Washington Times (in their commentary, not in their reporting), but at least they admit it. My problem is the anchormen like Dan Rather, Katie Couric, and others openly display their left-leaning politics and yet maintain to be totally unbiased in selecting and reporting the news.

Cheers...............

J. R. Miller said...

Keith, I think the comparison of Gore to Lindsay is accurate... fear mongering is not a legitimate means to achieve ones goal, no matter how noble.

John, I think the ManBearPig is a greater danger to our world... I can only pray AlGore really killed it.

John M... I think you are a bit confused. Global warming has not be the concern for 'many" decades... As a matter of fact, in the 70;s the scientific "consensus" was that we needed to fear Global cooling.

So much for scientific consensus.

I am so tired of junk science designed to fool the ignorant masses.

Roda Zone said...

Just to weigh in. If Al Gore really believes in global warming than why doesn't he curtail is own carbon footprint. Oh! I forgot...Al Gore is great when itcomes to lecturing people on how to live their lives when he won't do so himself.

Isn't this the same guy who took credit for the invention of the internet? Al Gore is an alarmist. So what...global warming is real. The real dispute is whether or not human beings are responsible. How do we know that the earth wouldn't still be warming even if we cut back on carbon emissions.

The fact is that Al Gore has gotten rich by giving expensive speeches and by making dollars off of these phony carbon offset scams. Didn't the guy own a zinc mine until a few years ago?

The 11th commandment...Thou Shalt practice what thou preaches. 'nuff said.

J. R. Miller said...

Rada, can you define for me in scientific terms what you mean in saying that "global warming" is "real"?

Greg Cox said...

Would anyone like to buy Kindle's Cholesterol Credits?