2007

Let's make this really, really simple. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee gave the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and about 3,300 UN bureaucrats and professors who worked on the chi-chi, politically correct, ultra-hip topic of global warming. As far as I know, none of the 3,300 ever had to put his or her life on the line. Mostly, they worked in air-conditioned classrooms and labs and were well paid. Al Gore has made an enormous business of his opposition to the oil companies. He has made literally tens of millions from his crusade (far, far more than any oil company executive presently working ).

A COUPLE of days before Al Gore was awarded his Nobel Peace prize, Michael Burton, an English High Court judge and apparently a fine film critic, ruled that Al's Oscar-winner An Inconvenient Truth was prone to "alarmism and exaggeration" and identified nine major factual errors.

So, former Vice President Al Gore is worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize, awarded every year with a nice bag of money “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” The first thought that naturally springs to mind is a movie by a politician of him giving speeches about something that, well, won’t stand up in court.

THE tormentors of Al Gore, who last week won a legal victory against his film, An Inconvenient Truth, are to step up their battle by sending British secondary schools a documentary attacking the science of global warming.

The reasons Gore was given the Peace Prize, according to Nobelprize.org, the official website of the Nobel awards, was not for mitigating any current conflict, but for preventing conflicts that haven’t yet occurred and for all we know, may never occur (unless the prize committee includes a few precogs we don’t know about).

“Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states”

Past winners have included founders and members of the Red Cross, members of the United Nations, human rights activists, and medical professionals.

Whether right or wrong, winners of the past were at least actively engaged in solving problems that directly affect human life on earth (war, disease, famine, etc). Gore has, thus far, provided the human race with the following: one bad movie, an increase in hand-wringing, hot-air, and panic. While he may not be the only black mark in the history of the award, Gore’s lack of contribution to human peace casts a shadow on the whole list of past winners.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTW6JiUXiqo 285 234]

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KzM6bIre7U 285 234]

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.