On The Nobel Peace Prize
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Policy — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I suppose that it should come as little surprise that Al Gore ended up winning the Nobel Peace Prize, as the prize has gradually turned into the Nobel Committee Thinks This Person Is A Good Person Prize. The Committee is, of course, entirely free to hold whatever opinions it wants about Al Gore and Gore can hold whatever opinions he wants to hold about the environment, but it is difficult to see how he has advanced "peace" per se. And please, no tenuous connections between climate change and warfare. Just about anything can be connected in some way, shape or form to warfare and it is more than a little bizarre for people to try to dig through a whole lot of . . . er . . . stuff, all the while exclaiming like latter day Reagans that "There's just got to be a peace pony in here somewhere!" A Trojan Horse is more like it.
In any event, it is worth noting that there has been a lot of valuable commentary regarding the environment that has come out over the past few days but has not received the attention that it should receive. Via David Boaz, for example, we have some valuable commentary from Bjorn Lomborg, showing that Gore is quite often at odds with the co-winners of the Peace Prize, the International Panel on Climate Change.
More by Lomborg (via Ben Domenech):
All eyes are on Greenland's melting glaciers as alarm about global warming spreads. This year, delegations of U.S. and European politicians have made pilgrimages to the fastest-moving glacier at Ilulissat, where they declare that they see climate change unfolding before their eyes.
Curiously, something that's rarely mentioned is that temperatures in Greenland were higher in 1941 than they are today. Or that melt rates around Ilulissat were faster in the early part of the past century, according to a new study. And while the delegations first fly into Kangerlussuaq, about 100 miles to the south, they all change planes to go straight to Ilulissat -- perhaps because the Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing.
I point this out not to challenge the reality of global warming or the fact that it's caused in large part by humans, but because the discussion about climate change has turned into a nasty dustup, with one side arguing that we're headed for catastrophe and the other maintaining that it's all a hoax. I say that neither is right. It's wrong to deny the obvious: The Earth is warming, and we're causing it. But that's not the whole story, and predictions of impending disaster just don't stack up.
Read it all. Relatedly, Jesse Walker will tell you how you too can win a Nobel Peace Prize. Let's cut to the chase:
My advice to anyone who wants to follow in the footsteps of Linus Pauling and the Dalai Lama is to fuse approaches two and three. Start an NGO devoted to murder and mayhem--something on the SPECTRE/Al Qaeda/Medellin Cartel model--and then agree to a truce. In theory, you could accomplish this in an afternoon, but to make a splash big enough to impress the Nobel judges it's probably best to bargain with something larger than the Nashville Police Department's hostage negotiations unit. Choose your target wisely.
Either that, or make a movie.
Of course, I happen to take the issue of climate change quite seriously. That's why I have hopped on the bandwagon for this idea. I continue to think that it represents the best mechanism by which each side in the global warming debate can call the bluff of the other and the best mechanism by which the objective truth about global climate change can come out, one way or the other and independent of the spin of personalities on each side of the debate who may have their egos too heavily invested in the argument to be zealous and conscientious seekers of truth.
« Upset About The World Food Crisis? — Comments (3) | Let's Help Algore Celebrate His Prize — Comments (28) »
On The Nobel Peace Prize 15 Comments (0 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
that came with the Nobel Peace Prize.
Check them out.
Speaking as an atmospheric scientist (well, grad student) who, however, hasn't researched the current climate change crisis, I think Al Gore has indeed done enough for world peace to earn the Nobel Prize, even if his science is dodgy (which it is). Of course, peace doesn't just mean the absence of war in this context. What Gore has done is to help bring much of the world together to solve a common problem by greatly increasing awareness of a global climate situation and the fact that it's global. Nations need to cooperate much more than by not killing each other in order to fix or at least mitigate anthropogenic climate change, and that's peace. If his book were any good perhaps he could win in Literature, or if his science weren't completely popularized and gutted of, well, science, perhaps he could win in Physics or Chemistry. (I do think that the Nobel prizes are kinda outdated as far as science goes, what with the growth of the field I happen to work in, but that's irrelevant.)
By the way, perhaps this isn't the right place, but your article about McKitrick's proposal -- well, not your article but the actual proposal -- suffers from a fatal flaw: it one-dimensionalizes global climate. As you said, there is a possibility that, because of various negative feedbacks (biomass, cloud formation, smaller-scale turbulence, whatever), the Earth might even get cooler. That could have its own problems and its own large changes in weather patterns enough to destroy much of civilization. Or possibly we could somehow arrive at a situation like the Eocene, where the tropical temperatures were similar to today's, possibly even a bit cooler, but there was no permanent ice in the poles -- the equator-to-pole gradient was much less steep. In that case, we have all of the problems of global warming but none of the carbon taxes proposed to disincentivize them. And if you remember the cooling scare of the 70's, well, there is a chance that with this possible global cooling, we may kick the planet into a snowball Earth (though compared with the other two possiblities I mentioned, this one is, uh, remote). I think it's a good idea, though, if the price can be indexed to something more robust, like the root-mean-square deviation of surface temperature averaged around the globe or something. But don't take my word for it; I'm not particularly informed here.
The prize was also not awarded to Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara and other Zimbabwe opposition leaders who were arrested and in some cases beaten by police earlier this year while protesting peacefully against dictator Robert Mugabe.
Or to Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest in Vietnam arrested this year and sentenced to eight years in prison for helping the pro-democracy group Block 8406.
Or to Wajeha al-Huwaider and Fawzia al-Uyyouni, co-founders of the League of Demanders of Women's Right to Drive Cars in Saudi Arabia, who are waging a modest struggle with grand ambitions to secure basic rights for women in that Muslim country.
Or to Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, who has fought tirelessly to end the violence wrought by left-wing terrorists and drug lords in his country.
Or to Garry Kasparov and the several hundred Russians who were arrested in April, and are continually harassed, for resisting President Vladimir Putin's slide toward authoritarian rule.
Or to the people of Iraq, who bravely work to rebuild and reunite their country amid constant threats to themselves and their families from terrorists who deliberately target civilians.
Or to Presidents Viktor Yushchenko and Mikheil Saakashvili who, despite the efforts of the Kremlin to undermine their young states, stayed true to the spirit of the peaceful "color" revolutions they led in Ukraine and Georgia and showed that democracy can put down deep roots in Russia's backyard.
Or to Britain's Tony Blair, Ireland's Bertie Ahern and the voters of Northern Ireland, who in March were able to set aside decades of hatred to establish joint Catholic-Protestant rule in Northern Ireland.
Or to thousands of Chinese bloggers who run the risk of arrest by trying to bring uncensored information to their countrymen.
Or to scholar and activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, jailed presidential candidate Ayman Nour and other democracy campaigners in Egypt.
Or, posthumously, to lawmakers Walid Eido, Pierre Gemayel, Antoine Ghanem, Rafik Hariri, George Hawi and Gibran Tueni; journalist Samir Kassir; and other Lebanese citizens who've been assassinated since 2005 for their efforts to free their country from Syrian control.
Or to the Reverend Phillip Buck; Pastor Chun Ki Won and his organization, Durihana; Tim Peters and his Helping Hands Korea; and Liberty in North Korea, who help North Korean refugees escape to safety in free nations.
wsj-subscription required
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
... are only the little people. They are not smart enough, or wise enough to know what good things needs to be done for them by their governments.
Besides, if one of these people were honored with the prize, it might cause some embarrassment for these liberals, because their oppressors are supported by the left.
An example, and I could give more, include the Democrats in Congress wanting to defund the Columbian government in their fight against FARC.
and of course we can't forget that the current Vietnamese regime was put into power with the help of the Democrat Party (replay Kerry war crimes testimony, of Jane Fonda sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun hear). They might have to admit they were on the wrong side of things if they give the prise to Father Nguyen Van Ly.
But those two examples are enough. I think I made my point.
That is why these people won't get the prize no matter how much more deserving they are. That is why the prize is a complete joke ever since they gave it to a terrorist, and this only continues its tradition of irrelevance.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Interestingly enough, Global Climate Change is only proven to be taking place in the northern hemisphere. Scientific data shows that the Earth is staying relatively constant in the southern hemisphere, while others show the South to be cooling. In addition, other planets in the solar system have demonstrated a corresponding increase in temperature, which some scientists attribute to the sun.
I don't want to say anything for sure, because science should never assert one truth and deny other views (as in the Middle Ages or the IPCC). However, current data definitely suggests that the sun is the most likely cause of northern hemispheral warming. Moreover, compared to the amount of CO2 produced by nature, mankind's output is relatively insignificant. Even more insignificant is carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, with the vast majority of it being water vapor (I believe over 90%).
While I dont like the idea of building economies, as we have done, on fossil and other fuels in limited supply, I dont like the idea of other nations living in third world conditions even less. So, while some underdeveloped countries in Africa may have access to coal or oil, they dare not use it because of international pressure.
Ultimately, Gore has rallied the world around an idea that has much more evidence against than for it and thereby does more harm than good. I dont know who I would have supported in the Peace Prize, but I see no reason why Gore was even eligible.
G E Someone
"Will we continue with yesterday's agenda and yesterday's failures, or will we reassert our ideals and our standards, will we reaffirm our faith, and renew our purpose?" -RR
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
My first comment!
As a scientist, I must ask for references to your assertions. If you can find me an article in a well-known and peer reviewed journal such as Science or Nature I would be much obliged. Quotes from "The Skeptical Environmentalist" do not count.
I also am unconvinced by your belief that underdeveloped countries in Africa are sitting on vast energy reserves that they are handcuffed from employing. First and foremost, given the world's appetite for oil any country that can be demonstrated to have significant reserves is certainly going to receive investment from savy energy corporations. Second, I have seen no evidence that countries such as China give even a smidgen of thought as to what the developed world thinks of their domestic energy policies. Third, my understanding is that most international energy agreements that are being seriously considered focus on the developed world's energy usage.
You are absolutely correct that science should not (and by my reckoning usually does not) disregard competing views. However, most of the scientific literature that I have read on this subject has suggested that much of what Mr. Gore has stated is grounded in good science. Now science cannot say on any topic that something is an immutable fact. However, science can say "the best evidence suggests x". (If I'm challenged to find references for Gore I will but as I am a medical student and your local library is free and convenient I would urge you to make use of it)
As to your opinion that Mr. Gore does not deserve the prize. That is well within your right and if you think someone else is more deserving I suggest you submit a letter to the Nobel Committee.
Finally, I would hope if any of you disagree with me that you would present your arguments in a polite fashion. I believe I have extended you the same courtesy.
-Shibby
As a scientist, I must ask for references to your assertions. If you can find me an article in a well-known and peer reviewed journal such as Science or Nature I would be much obliged. Quotes from "The Skeptical Environmentalist" do not count.
Thank you for allowing me an exit from your lengthy comment so quickly. You saved me some time.
and their successful campaign to have Americans deny themselves in fvaor of snail daters and funder terror regimes thru gas prices, how can you say:
"First and foremost, given the world's appetite for oil any country that can be demonstrated to have significant reserves is certainly going to receive investment from savy energy corporations."
savy?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Speaking as an atmospheric scientist (well, grad student) who, however, hasn't researched the current climate change crisis
I may be ignorant of the facts but I have my opinions and those opinions mirror Algore.
Nations need to cooperate much more than by not killing each other in order to fix or at least mitigate anthropogenic climate change, and that's peace.
I can torture the English language all I want to make it mean what I want it to mean.
As you said, there is a possibility that, because of various negative feedbacks (biomass, cloud formation, smaller-scale turbulence, whatever), the Earth might even get cooler. That could have its own problems and its own large changes in weather patterns enough to destroy much of civilization. Or possibly we could somehow arrive at a situation like the Eocene, where the tropical temperatures were similar to today's, possibly even a bit cooler, but there was no permanent ice in the poles -- the equator-to-pole gradient was much less steep. In that case, we have all of the problems of global warming but none of the carbon taxes proposed to disincentivize them.
We need those carbon taxes -- we need to penalize achievers -- we need money for social programs
I translated that last paragraph a little differently though.
No matter what is going to happen we have to give more money to people in the field I am studying. Giving us extra governmental powers to screw with the general populace sounds good to me too. Am I going to get some kind of rod or stick that I can go around smiting apostates with ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism
The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change
I appreciate your politeness, I really do. And the last thing I would want to be is labeled as an impolite critic, or someone who is not willing to admit truth when he sees it.
I first believed in anthropological climate change. All the evidence was there, many countries acknowledged it, etc. However, In the past year I have come across several sources that changed my mind.
First was the The Politically Incorrect Guide to Globabl Warming and Environmentalism. In this book, the author trounces (or at least I believe he does) any information to support the current theory.
Then I saw the Great Global Warming Swindle which further discredits a lot of the support for manmade climate change. I have also begun to read the Chilling Stars which makes the case for the sun to be the cause of warming and cooling.
In all respects of the science of global warming, I would like to believe I have done my research. However, every time I have Googled or searched the Internet for more info, on either side, I just get doomsay articles without credible info either way. I recognize that my two main sources are politically bias, and could be leaving out real info. But from their records and data, I am more inclined to believe them. So if you can find something to disprove them, I would gladly like to read it. I would rather be battered with truth than soothed with lies.
On the subject of Africa, that was only mentioned in the Swindle, and I think I spoke out of place. I don't have as much information in this area, so I will retract my statement about that.
However, if you look at much of what the Kyoto Protocol and IPCC require of developed nations to reduce their emissions, I do wonder how much the underdeveloped nations are being allowed to develop at all.
Once again, thank you for being civil with my comment. I hope that I conveyed the same respect, and that in the future, I am a little more careful to write what I know, and not what I think.
G E Someone
"Will we continue with yesterday's agenda and yesterday's failures, or will we reassert our ideals and our standards, will we reaffirm our faith, and renew our purpose?" -RR
G E Someone
I attempted to contact you via email but your redstate account does not allow it. I am sorry that I took so long to reply to you however I did say I am a medical student and I am quite busy. However, I believe this article...
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2006/06energy_easterbrook.aspx
(click on download to pdf for easier reading)
...while not being an article from Science (the journal), it provides the general message that I would like to convey. I am not sure you will check this due to the lateness of my reply but I appreciate your comments. I will read your references and think on them.
Have a good holiday season.
"And while the delegations first fly into Kangerlussuaq, about 100 miles to the south, they all change planes to go straight to Ilulissat -- perhaps because the Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing."
That doesn't appear to be the case.
http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2007/10/9/95151/9669?show_comments=no
You would think he would be a little more careful, as his credibility hasn't exactly been the greatest as it is.