FFS Why did they give that plumsac Al Gore one????


Christ, he's as weak as Hansa Larger Beer and his DVD is shite

The bloke is a tit....

Al Gore is actually one of the least intellectually deprived of the former vice-presidents and presidents. Next to Dan Quayle he's Socrates.
The press have exaggerated a lot of stuff he has said, especially about his "inventing the Internet". He never claimed any such thing. He said he was instrumental in CREATING the Internet. That means he took the available technologies and actually paid someone to construct something with them. As anyone who knows their subject will tell you, the Internet started off as a defence department communications channel. That was Al Gore's doing.

OK he's still a politician and consequently not the sharpest nail in the box, and it's totally unlikely that he deserves a Nobel Prize. But he has come in for a lot of unwarranted criticism and people would do well to recognise that instead of taking everything they read at face value.

http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm

We'd be talking about President Gore now if Jeb Bush hadn't been so good at fiddling the voting system.

Don't find much wrong with what you have said there, I just feel it devalues the prize giving it to him, he hasn't really done much to warrant it!

It has been devalued ever since Gandhi was denied one despite being nominated FIVE TIMES. But I see where you are coming from. Maybe only one in four Nobel Peace Prize winners have any merit at all.
In the last ten years the only ones I can think of are Muhammad Yunus and Medecins sans Frontières because they actually got off their arse and went out and made things work with tangible results.
I mean Andrei Sakharov for fook's sake; he made nuclear bombs!

the question that i am thinking of is how much is the prize money

10 million Swedish Kroner for a full prize!

which is how much ten bob