I am ashamed to be Norwegian today. The Norwegian Nobel Committee chose to give the prize to a shyster and a bureaucratic ministry of truth. I am not sure if I am more furious or more ashamed.
There were plenty of worthy candidates, doing actual work to build peace between quarreling parties and reducing standing armies, but this years choice was a populist attempt to influence the political discourse on climate change.
Earlier today, I was wondering if the motivation was to get more Hollywood glamour in their lives. The old world glamour of royalty, heavy crystal, and gowns must be getting old, but this is the political cynic in me speaking.
The press release states that Al Gore is one of the world's leading environmental politicians, even though the administration he was the vice president of did not even manage to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. His one achievement was a public policy stunt full of scaremongering and misrepresentation.
The press release states that IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus, which is true. This consensus is created by having experts sift through solid research and write up summaries based on personal judgment.
The threat of global warming is used to justify further intervention in the daily lives of regular people. Legitimizing this movement has already lead to human suffering all over the world. More energy rationing will increase the danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states. We know this. History has proven this. Energy rationing will increase the threat to the security of mankind.
The Committee has, willfully or inadvertently, become instruments for a political movement that will result in human suffering and grief. None of the Nobel science prizes have ever been given to climate related research. The Committee however, states in the press release that indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness. They ought to leave evaluation of research on energy to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. They are entrusted with the Nobel Prize in Physics after all.
The press release also says that the precautionary principle should be utmost on our minds. The kind of society that will result from applying the precautionary principle is a stagnant society with constant conflicts over scarce resources. How does that promote peace and the security of mankind?
The Nobel Committee has a long tradition for being controversial; it has repeatedly awarded the price to controversial candidates in an effort to reach a hand out to people building bridges for peace and prosperity. This decision was not controversial; it was trite.
I am saddened and angry that Norwegian politicians have devalued the Nobel Peace Prize.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org 
OpenMarket.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
DriveInnovation.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 
Stop!!! Global Warming http://r10-net-seo-yarismasi-jeam.blogspot.com/
No one needs to be blamed on this. Theres always a reason behind it.
nike shoes cucusoft converter cucusoft air jordan shoesadidas shoes starcraft cd key warcraft 3 cd key diablo 2 cd key diablo 2 cd keys dvd to ipod converter free dvd to ipod converter ipod video converter free ipod video converter
nike hyperdunk nike shoes air jordan shoes fake air jordans air jordan
"None of the Nobel science prizes have ever been given to climate related research."
Well, the Nobel science categories are fairly limited: they consist of physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine. That's it. There is no general biology prize, just as there is no specific prize for mathematics. Climate research doesn't fall into any of the existing categories, and the absence of a science Nobel for climate research is no more significant than the absence of a Nobel for proving the Poincare conjecture.
"More energy rationing will increase the danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."
Hmm–no evidence is cited to support the idea that Gore or other environmentalists advocate rationing. Usually, environmentalists advocate policies that are intended to use energy more cleanly and efficiently–that's the impetus behind hybrid cars, compact fluorescent lights, alternative energy sources, etc.
"The Nobel Committee has a long tradition for being controversial; it has repeatedly awarded the price to controversial candidates in an effort to reach a hand out to people building bridges for peace and prosperity."
I don't know that I'd call it a tradition, but there are certainly egregious prizes out there. For Physiology or Medicine, there's Egas Moniz, inventor of the frontal lobotomy; for Peace, there's Henry Kissinger, Lê Ð?c Th?, and Arafat. There are also prizes that are simply weak, largely because the winner simply hadn't succeeded at his or her chosen task. Here I'd put the UN/Kofi Annan, the IAEA/El Baradei, and Rabin/Shamir (who could also go in the "egregious" category). To me, Gore's prize falls in the latter category–he hasn't done much of anything except talk. The movie is good and largely accurate, but that's just not enough. The Nobel committee would have done better to award no prize at all.
"Climate research doesn't fall into any of the existing categories."
"The movie is good and largely accurate".
You know better. Are you suggesting it would be fair to give any sort of scientific prize to Al Gore should there be a climate change category? His movie is an example of unnecessary and unfounded alarmism, designed to scare people based on false asumptions. This man flies the world in his private jet tellinjg us we must stop drinking coffee, but lives in a mansion where he consumes 20 times more electricity than the average american (see this). This is gigantic hipocrisy.
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?a…
about the movie, i must disagree in that it is a flawed, one-sided view of a debate that has just started. Actually the judge has just removed it from schools for this reason.
check it yourself:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=…
Remeber Al Gore in meltdown mode shouting "They betrayed this country! They played on our fears! Well, that's what Big Al is doing now. Betraying the US and the world and playing on baseless fears. The rock record shows us endless periods of heating and (dare I say it) cooling of the earth. All of this well before internal combustion, electricity, and other "social ills". Maybe one day people will wake and say, "Look, the Emperor has no clothes!" and the fraud will be exposed for what he is, an alarmist and a fear monger.
CERN's CLOUD experiment is underway, and if the science continues on the track it appears to be on, perhaps there will be a Nobel Prize in Physics someday to those who have found a link between galactic cosmic rays and low level clouds, and are busy doing the science that is needed to unravel the mysteries of climate change now and over the last billion years or so.
Since physicist Henrik Svensmark is certainly at or near the top of that list, as are other Danes, Scandinavia may find scientific redemption from today's mistake. In the meantime, Al Gore has joined a number of others whose Nobel Peace Prize is more a political statement than a celebration of peace.
Al Gore is a politician who has discovered a great marketing plan via the global warming bandwagaon. When opinions, politics and research funding work together with marketing experts, you see exactly what is occuring today.. Something that can not be proven or dis-proven. Whether or not the earth is getting warmer is not the issue, rather will the resulting water levels (if it is true) actually occur if the earth is expanding by 4-12% as scientists have also proven. Has humanity actually caused some or all of the warming? That answer is subject to interpretation depending on what side of the political discussion you are upholding…
So, why should we take Al Gore seriously? Because marketing efforts say we should…and no other reason exists.
If Ornat says it, then it's right. Next?
It seems that this is another ply to make money for someone. It seems to me that the Soverign God we have has no more say so on what goes on in this universe he created out of nothing. It also seems to me lilke man thinks he is in charge now and God just has to abide by what ever he does. What are they going to say when God deceides to destroy this world by fire as He has stated He is going to do. Will they (people) blame it on a camp fire started by someone, lightning or what? Let's wake up this world is not going anywhere till the soverign God get's ready to do what ever He has predicted. One thing He states is that as time continues things will get worse and worse. I am 71 years old and I have seen it get worse each year as we continue doing our thing our way and not God's way. So get ready to make a decision as to where you will choose, God's way or man's way.
When will you get it? Global Warming is here…and it has nothing to do with Al Gore. He is simply wading his way through the quagmire of uninformed opinions that are preventing humans from realizing the damage that they are inflicting on the planet.
It is a complex issue, but science is science. See this documented info from today: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/11/9485…
Reality is reality. What is the worst that can happen by cleaning up the planet? What is the worst that can happen by doing nothing? Forget about Al Gore, he is not the problem.
Science is science–you are correct and it needs to remain science. The scientific method is the core of science and the first sign of a scientific charlatan is that they discount out of hand contrary evidence and dissent and therefore the scientific method itself.
Reality is reality–you are correct and slight-of-hand can only changes your perception of reality, not reality itself. Unfortunately it's easy to change the representation of data so as to make any point you want, but those who torture data to make a predetermined point are not being faithful to reality, no matter what their representation seems to show.
Al Gore is guilty on both counts, but he's not happy simply violating science and reality. If he was only asking for us to be aware and kind to the environment he could perhaps be excused. However, what he proposes are actions that represent significant damage to the human situation, and more so to those who can least provide for themselves. This is neither honest, nor productive and we will see in some short years the true folly of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. I only hope that in the mean time we can avoid the damage it may cause.
Chuck
"Anonymous" gives a link to dailykos. Yes, that particular IPCC chart is wrong. It takes a special kind of follower to decide that since the IPCC CO2 models miserably failed to predict the change, it is a vindication that the basic models are correct, just not pessimistic enough.
Yes, it's gotten warmer in the last 100 years. This is not unusual. In written human history, what we have now is probably more normal than the Little Ice Age that ended in the 1800's before the current warming.
When good science is present, as time goes on, the understanding increases. We instead have the IPCC approved atmospheric modeling continuing to diverge from reality. Some in one direction, others in the opposite direction. There is something going on that the computer models are not programmed for.
The IPCC models, to the extent they take clouds into effect, assume cloud cover is a result of the temperatures and humidity predicted by the greenhouse modeling. There is a competing theory that stands that relationship on it's head, that cloud cover is significantly driven by galactic cosmic rays, and the more clouds, the more of the sun's energy gets reflected into space rather than heating the planet's surface.
Science marches on.
The Cosmoclimatology paper by Svensmark:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111…
A good description of the CERN CLOUD experiment that is underway:
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cl…
A site by physicist Nir Shaviv, cited by Svensmark
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate
I have yet to see any explanation of Figure 8 in the Cosmoclimatology paper (temperature vs. cosmic ray flux of data after Shaviv and Vezier) that explains what in the galaxy in the galaxy might explain the correlation besides cosmic rays affecting clouds.
It should be mentioned that the CERN particle beam CLOUD experiment was set to start in the late 90's but funding dropped sometime after one of the scientists mentioned they thought galactic cosmic rays could be the cause of all of the 20th century's warming. It is back online after a simpler experiment using natural cosmic rays proved cosmic rays can create the aerosols, the seeding, needed for cloud formation.
The science is far from settled and there is one thing that is for certain: No one knows for sure what the world's temperature might be if there was nobody here to complain about the heat. Politicians should stay out of it.
Agree with Lene and am glad a Norwegian is taking their own to task…
This is a low point, about as low as when Yassar Arafat was awarded the Peace Prize…now we know he was a terrorist and con man who robbed tens of millions from the Palestinian People
Gore is on the same par….another huckster selling global destruction…the problem is that the destruction occurs after we follow Gore down his proscribed path
Stop! http://r10-net-seo-yarismasi-jeam.blogspot.com/
Comments on this entry are closed.