In terms of practical effects, no, there wasn't. I made as much of a difference on campus (which is to say none) that those hundreds, no thousands, of scientists and geologists who threw their weight behind a dumpy unhinged washed-out political malcontent who lied his way through some shlocky Hollywood hit piece.
You're basically admitting Gore hasn't done anything and that the Nobel Peace Prize has become some symbol of back-patting lefty "moral authority." Where other people got it for actually doing stuff, Al Gore didn't even get it for convincing people to do stuff. He got it for talking about convincing people to do stuff he, himself, isn't even doing. And again, if his work is, as you suggest, scientifically credible, why was he not given the prize in one of the science categories?
OK, well, first of all, I defy you to point out where anyone here said that Gore didn't get the prize, because if no one said that he didn't, then pointing out that he did get it accomplishes nothing (rather like Gore himself).
And if you acknowledge no one has to agree, then don't bristle at my disagreement and actually try to defend the guy on some grounds better than, "It's in the past." It's not in the past. The man should've been laughed off stage for his dishonesty, and instead he's getting a metal.
