To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (16556 ) 10/13/2007 4:38:43 PM From: mph Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 224729 Where has global warming caused such conflict during this or the last century? Or more particularly, what have Gore's efforts in the past year done for peace? We've certainly seen strife in many areas about many things, but I can't say that I've seen any wars fought over conditions created by "global warming". The effects of global warning about which Gore speaks are not projected to occur for many years, even according to him. [That sure makes his job a lot easier, I suppose.] Here's an article about the Nobel prizes:nobelprize.org With respect to the peace prize:I have cited the general clause in Nobel's will saying that the prizes should be given to those who "in the preceding year have conferred the greatest benefit on makind." With regard to the Peace Prize, Nobel defined this as having "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." The most difficult stipulation to live up to has undoubtedly been "in the preceding year." This is now understood to indicate the most recent contributions in the various cultural fields to which the will refers. Where the Peace Prize is concerned, the wording has been seen as opening up opportunities to engage in processes which have not yet reached a conclusion, but where there has been clear evidence of progress, as in the democratisation process in South Africa or the peace process in the Middle East, for which the Peace Prizes were awarded in 1993 and 1994. The Prize awarded in 1998 to John Hume and David Trimble of Northern Ireland can be seen in the same light. The Prize, in other words, is not only for past achievement, although that is the most important criterion. The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account. Among the reasons for adding this as a criterion is the obvious point that Nobel wanted the Prize to have political effects. Awarding a Peace Prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act – which is also the reason why the choices so often stir up controversy. I don't see how Gore's "work" has necessarily resulted in "clear evidence of progress". Of course, the truth is that the choice was political. Period. There are people and countries who want nothing more than to have the U.S. cripple itself with restrictions in the name of saving the planet. That's why Gore and his little movie have become such a hit with the libs, the Europeans and the one world crowd. I think it pays to read between the lines. Gore received the Peace Prize because there is an element that wants to keep the focus on global warming and this is just another way to do it. Peace really has nothing to do with it.