The IAEA and the UN have noble purposes but generally are resounding failures. Their awards were given more as a “stick-it-to-ya” directed at the United States, not because they actually accomplished the mission of peace. However, the wholesale abandonment of peacemaking as the criteria for which the Nobel Peace Prize is offered indicates how far the Nobel committee has fallen from its original purpose. Alfred Nobel was a pacifist, not a politician. He intended to award others who promoted peace, not those who promoted the fad policy of the day.
No one can dispute Martin Luther King Jr.’s contribution to peace, or the contributions of the Red Cross, Doctors without Frontiers, or the Dalai Lama. Even if you accept man-made climate change as 100% true as presented by Al Gore, you must admit that the issue isn’t about world peace. It is a true shame that the committee has so tarnished the Nobel Peace Prize that it has totally abandoned the vision of its founder.
It also hides the great work done by many groups out there who are promoting human rights, freedom, economic development, and world peace. Those people certainly don’t get into that field because they want the glory, but it's a shame that this Nobel Prize takes away one avenue that the public has to see their important work.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - DustinSD
The effects of continued globing warming will cause a scarcity of resources that would no doubt spur countless wars in the future. This award is very tightly linked to peace.
2 - Clavos
"The effects of continued globing warming will cause a scarcity of resources..."
Which resources?
According to whom?
3 - handyguy
Is it really useful or necessary to piss on this particular parade? The Nobel Peace Prize could be considered the 'ultimate do-gooder' award. It's too bad rightists feel they have make a sour face about it.
And since there hasn't been significant improvement in most of the wars in the world recently, who would a viable alternative have been had the name of the award been interpreted more strictly?
From the wire services:
"Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man's control," the committee said.
It warned that climate change -- linked to droughts, floods and rising seas -- could threaten living conditions across the world, prompt mass migrations and increase the risk of wars.
"We face a true planetary emergency," Gore said. "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."
4 - Clavos
With all due respect to algore (a politician), it's a political issue, pure and simple.
Nothing more.
What little science is involved consists of forecasts based on computer "models" created from WAGs (wild-ass guesses, in scientific terms) and assumptions made by scientists with a vested interest in being correct.
One such forecast, the infamous "hockey stick," has been repeatedly debunked and invalidated.
Last week, those same scientists invited a group of journalists and others to Greenland to observe a glacier melting and falling into the sea at a fairly rapid clip. Everyone oohed and aahed, and rushed to file their stories about the pernicious effects of GW, which flooded (pun intended) the media for several days.
However, the scientists did NOT show the journalists the similar glacier not far away that is actually adding ice, and growing.
That would have been a real "Inconvenient Truth."
5 - Baronius
This article makes a good point. There's a difference between good things and peacemaking things. The guys who created YouTube have influenced the world in a positive way, at least the world of badly-dubbed homemade videos. Why not give them a Peace Prize?
As for Mandela et al, remember the rules for winning awards. Oscars go to comedic actors when they do a serious role; Nobel Prizes go to murderers when they stop killing people. It's all about playing against type.
6 - Deano
Re: the article and Comment # 2:
The link between environmental degradation, population and resource pressure as a significant causal factor in war is a long-standing one, so the claim that there is no linkage to peace or conflict prevention is disingenous at best. Mopping up spilled gasoline certainly qualifies as fire prevention, you don't need the fire burning the house down first to qualify....
I know it's hard but try not to let the ideological antipathy some of you have towards Gore edge you over into blatent stupidity. It makes for tiresome comments and God knows there are enough of those already being posted on this site.
7 - El Bicho
No planet, no peace.
8 - Particle
There's one golden rule in technology:
"Never touch a running system."
We should stick to that and don't mess around with sophisticated systems beyond our knowledge, like climate is one.
The price for Al Gore is totally ok if the information he spreads helps preventing resource war for clean water or maintainable agricultural soil by making people over think their way of life and change it.
9 - david
Wangari Maathai, in 2004, is considered the first to have been awarded the prize primarily for environmental work
10 - El Bicho
Seriously though, I am all for discussion, but it's hard to believe that's what you are looking for. In your rush to be published and put down the awarding body and its recipients, you overlook the answers right in front of you.
"2007 marks the first time the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for a reason wholly unconnected to stopping war."
Just because you don't understand something does not make it so. If you had spent a few seconds looking over the press release, you would have read their reasoning.
"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."
They clearly state the award was given for peace, not a present peace, but a future one. It requires thinking outside the box.
Now you can disagree with their reasoning, but if you "assume for the moment that all of Al Gore’s claims on climate change are true," then your statement that this award is "wholly unconnected to stopping war" is utterly false.
11 - John Bambenek
Re: Wangari Maathi, according to Nobel's website, "for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace". I'm not sure how you can tie democracy into the environment.
Re: El Bicho
Note the word choice... it ****may**** lead. They're making it up and they aren't hiding it very well.
12 - Baronius
Headaches are dangerous. They can be a symptom of a more serious ailment. People with headaches often have short tempers. Any effort to alleviate head pain improves lives and the stability of nations. This year's Nobel Peace Prize goes to Head-On. "Head-On, apply directly to the forehead".
13 - handyguy
Clavos, you of course have every right to cling to an unprovable opinion, but the fact that more scientists disagree with you than agree with you has to mean something. Most scientists are commies?
14 - handyguy
The ad running on this article for a 'Nobel Peace Prize Ringtone' gave me a good laugh.
15 - bliffle
Particle says:
There's one golden rule in technology:
"Never touch a running system.""
Really? Somebody forgot to tell me and my cohorts!
I spent a lifetime in technology and most of what we did was change running systems. Letś see, we upgraded and updated electronics in ECM systems so theyd be less susceptible to commie jamming. Why, we even changed from AM to FM systems! And beyond! We took out perfectly good running systems to put in shift-registers, spread spectrum, etc.
Were we wrong to do that?
Would you like to go back to AM radio? Black and white TV?
Where were you when we needed your keen insight?
¨We should stick to that and don't mess around with sophisticated systems beyond our knowledge, like climate is one.¨
But we ARE tinkering with climate and we have been for a couple hundred years by injecting crap into the atmosphere.
Oh well. Another bogus theory from the peanut gallery.
16 - Big Dog
The award was not given for peace. It was given for the assumption that Global Warming will lead to war. There is no proof (Al Gore saying it is settled science is not proof) that GW exists. The committee awarded the prize based on a supposition of a supposition.
We could do that with millions of things. GW Bush is fighting terror so there MAY be not terrorist acts in the future.
Big Dog may invent a drug that makes all countries love each other.
The DC snipers MAY have killed the next Hitler therefore they MAY have kept the future peace.
Truman MAY have stopped millions more from being killed and made peace by dropping the bomb.
I thought the prize was for doing something that actually fostered peace, like negotiating a peace treaty, or ending a war.
However, having said all that I really do not care who they award it to (though I could use the money and I MAY have prevented a nuclear war). Al Gore needs this to bolster his self esteem so good for him. After they gave the award to Arafat, it had no real meaning.
17 - Clavos
Deano,
In comment #2 I didn't say anything in regard to war resulting from resource scarcity.
What I did ask (not say) the commenter was to enumerate what resources he thought would become scarce as a result of ongoing global warming, and from whom did he get the information.
Handy,
Did I say anyone in the GW movement is a commie? In a word, no.
I wish they were communists, rather than American liberals; communists are easier to deal with and their motivations are closer to my own.
As to the number of scientists who agree or disagree with me (or even each other): good science has nothing to do with consensus; witness Copernicus, Galileo and others who were not part of the consensus of their time. And, before everyone gets their panties in a knot, I am NOT comparing myself to them, just illustrating my point that there ARE respected scientists today who don't buy the popular dire predictions of Mr. gore.
18 - Rock
Try this one on for size. We heed Al's warning and ween ourselves off oil. Then we lose our taste for Middle East politics and the oil baron's lose their clout leading to a much less conflicted world. Rock
19 - Baronius
Dog, I'm tired of bolstering Gore's self-esteem. He got an Emmy, an Oscar, a Nobel Prize, and almost the Presidency, and he didn't earn any of them.
20 - Life jackets for polar bears
Humans are causing climate change. Why does that deserve an award? We'll need the extra water from the melted polar ice packs to grow our biofuel crops anyway.
21 - Dixon
Global Warming is a fact. Period. You cannot argue that the globe is not warming. I live in NYC and 10,000 years ago it was burried benieth a glacier. That glacier has since melted. Why? Global Warming. Saying you don't believe in Global Warming is like saying you believe we still live in the Ice Age.
If the globe continues to warm it will reach the point where it is no longer sutable for human habitation. I don't care if this is caused by man or not. When the world is going to end finger pointing seems pretty pointless.
We need to start thinking of Mankind as the cure for Global Warming, not the cause. It's time we stopped putting so much energy into trying to fix the blame and redirect that energy toward fixing the problem.
22 - gonzo marx
Bambenek sez - "In fact, in reviewing the entire balance of past award winners, the prize was given to those working to end conflicts, promote human rights, promote economic development in poor countries, or weapons non-proliferation. 2007 marks the first time the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for a reason wholly unconnected to stopping war."
and in that very Quote there resides the refutation of the entire Article's thesis, the part in bold is what i mean
but what the hell, accuracy or objective Reality are not the gist of the Article....nor the blatant Agenda of it's author
Excelsior?
23 - justoneman
The effects of Al G(wh)ore and his groupies continued gobbling of big Macs and cheese doodles while traveling around the world in private jets, SUVs and limos lecturing all the morons who are too waste their time listing to his hypocrisy of
This is all about "the scarcity of his brain matter" in that he cannot come to grips that he is lost the election and is viewed as an embarrassment by most Americans. This award is very tightly linked to bush hating anti-American assholes.
Al - PLEASE RUN FOR PRESIDENT! We need a good laugh!
JOM
24 - gonzo marx
oh yeah...and there you have the "opposition"
as usual JoM produces NO facts to refute anything, just more mudslinging as opposed to reasonable discussion of differences...
and also, as usual...NO solution are ever forthcoming from those who adhere to that style of "politics"
do note, i'm unaware of anyone stating that humans are the ONLY cause of GW, rather the scientists involved state that Man's actions have just made the matter worse
big difference there
Excelsior?
Excelsior?
25 - El Bicho
"Note the word choice... it ****may**** lead. They're making it up and they aren't hiding it very well."
I see. Now, it's not that they don't have a reason related to peace. It's just that you don't believe it's genuine. I wish you had made that known in your article, and I would have trusted my first instinct and just moved on. Hard to have a discussion with a closed mind.
"There is no proof...that GW exists."
Uh, the fact that you are alive proves it exists, BD. Global warming and man contributing to it in a dangerous way are two completely different things. Feel free to look it up unless you don't want the facts getting in the way of your opinion.