Supreme courts rules that Al Gore cannot accept the Nobel's prize! LOL! ;)

You might know opednews.com? Well here is a little masterpiece by Jim Freeman about Al Gore's Nobel Prize:

In a stunning reversal, but true to their core beliefs, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that Al Gore cannot accept the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded him.
The court, in an unsigned finding (as are all Gore decisions) responded to George Bush's anticipatory plea for a restraining order based on the fact that "it's not all that hot out anyhow and what in the hell has that got to do with peace?"
Naming the Nobel Committee "just a bunch of Norwegian troublemakers," the court held that Gore cannot accept an award from "those who live too far north to know what warm really feels like." The ruling came within twenty minutes of the announcement and caught Nancy Pelosi, uncharacteristically, in a brown dress.
Dana Perino said the White House would have no comment other than an unconfirmed report by a source that declines to be identified, that the president called Chief Justice John Roberts, effusing "this is the second time that bum has had his ears trimmed by this court and you'd think he'd have finally learned a lesson."
According to a source close to the president, this is only the second time in his career that he has effused.

The reaction of Al Gore when he heard the news! ;)

Actually Bush should have shared the price with Gore, as without all the mistakes he did, Al Gore wouln't have the same spotlight on his face!

So i vote for a nobel shared between Bush and Al gore, not with the UN blablah... ;)

You know it's like the good and the bad cop: they had to be in a duo in order to notice them. So, are Gore and Bush! ;)

Actually, that's quite funny that a person could be nobel prized for peace because of fighting global warming as there is no real relationship with peace. But the bottom line is that the buzz is growing: on both sides: Gore's and the Nobel's ones.

It's all about communication. I m sure that there is someone who died, or who is saving a lot of people from the war in Irak, but no one notices because THIS IS NOT ORIGINAL!

That's unfortunate, that's sad, but that's true: it's far more original a former ex-running president which converted into fighting global warming and which succeeded in drawing attention toward the cause!

I do not say that what he did is not great, i m just stating that's not that great to see how people want original things.

I m not sure that the money and the attention he got were very necessary. There are far more other peace cause which needed that! Each award carries a cash prize of 10 million Swedish kronor, which this year is worth about $1.54 million. So Gore will go with roughly 700 000$, that's not a lot as he is used to give conferences for 100 000$, but still, i am curious to see how he will use his money? A good move would be to give it to a charity, an anti-global warming or a peace movement.

After the Oscar and the Emmy, here comes the Nobel! ;)

Finally here is a little opinion as i liked the view of The Koreatimes:

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2007/10/137_11897.html

Not to deny Al Gore his full honors but it seems to us that the Nobel went rather far afield in awarding the former vice president the prize for peace for espousing and publicizing a special, if widely held, view of climatology. And indeed Gore did share the award with 2,000 or so scientists who make up the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Generally the prize goes to what are more generally considered peace activists -- Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela, for example.And although the list is secret Gore's rivals for the awards included a roster of longtime human rights advocates.

The success of Gore's film ``An Inconvenient Truth," an Oscar-winning documentary that takes an alarmist view of climate change, especially global warming (Gore says "we face a true planetary emergency"), positioned him for the prize. And a British court has questioned some of the claims in the film, among them that sea levels will rise 20 feet ``in the near future."

The Nobel committee made the long stretch linking global warming and world peace by arguing that the disruption, mass migrations and competition for natural resources caused by climate change could mean ``increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."

Nobel officials deny it but many others see the award as a jab at the Bush administration for its rejection of an international treaty calling for drastic reductions in carbon emissions. Among them is global warming skeptic Bjorn Lonborg who saw nothing wrong with giving the prize to the U.N. panel but said, ``Awarding it to Al Gore cannot be seen as anything other than a political statement."

But, as Gore surely learned after the Florida recount when he almost became president, once you've won it really doesn't matter how you got there. Andit is not as if Gore is a late comer to the cause of environmentalism or something he took up to keep his name in the news.

The environment has been a career-long avocation of his. Shortly before he became vice president he published the bestselling and also alarmist ``Earth in the Balance."

Even though we're still not sure we see the link between peace and polar bears, we congratulate Al Gore and the U.N. scientists on their prize.