Joint winners of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. 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.
Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.
Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.
By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world's future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man's control.
100% ditto to that, Tim. Well done Al, IPCC!
Absolutely wonderful news and well earned. I am going to celebrate!
Putting the IPCC up on the podium is a strong that sends pointed message to denialists everywhere. Wait for the brains to start exploding over at the usual delusional websites. (Nothing so far from ClimateAudit. Will they ignore it? My bet is on some half-arsed argument about group think within 24 hours, with bonus Galileo reference.)
One message I take from this decision is that the science must go hand in hand with the communication effort -- i.e. the "framing". It's not spin: anyone who's seen Swindle ought to know the difference between framing the truth and assaulting it.
Good news, of course, but I think the denialists have plenty of options, not least disagreement with the whole idea of a Glorification of Surrender Prize. "Al Gore Now Officially a Loser Like Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat".
Steve Colbert will no doubt spell all the arguments out.
Is the prize worth anything after two noted anti-semites have won it- Yasser Araft and Jimmy Carter.
In any event i only wish the committee had heard about the UK court case before hand. Maybe they would have come to their senses.
It's a terrible decision.
Yes, I think reactions to this will be a useful litmus test about sanity versus fixed delusions (see responses above). Those who see ll reference to climate change as a code for total government involvement in daily life (while, at least in the US, accepting government calls for total involvement in daily life in the name of 'security') will go eve more nuts. Good. We need to have more clear markers on who can't participate in rational conversation. Again, see above.
Congratulations, Al
This isn't the first time the Peace Prize has been given for scientific research: [Norman Borlaug](http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html).
Congrats to Albert and "IPCC" (ie, to all those thousands of scientists who spent their time and energy on this).
But I suspect that to the "Fat-Al-Gore-hating-Jim-Hansen-attacking-stuck-in-junior-high-Ayn-Rand-Worshiping-Libertarians, "Oct 12, 2007" is a day that will live in infamy.
Did I just pwn Jc there?
The prize is a joke. Kissinger got it. And a week after he was awarded it, el Baradei was out talking about war. It's no endorsement of the good work of the IPCC.
David, you totally did, pre-empting his argument before he made it. Of course, anyone who resorts to facts also does.
I think it would be fun to come up with n 'anti-semitic' disqualification for all Peace Prize recipients, no matter how hard the stretch, just to show how easy and nonsensical it is. For example, Lester Pearson, the 1957 recipient, who developed the notion of UN peacekeepers, to separate Israeli and Egyptian forces after the 1956 Suez fiasco - clearly an anti-semitic act, as was the US government's active opposition to the joint British/French/Israeli action.
See how easy it is?
Is the prize worth anything after two noted anti-semites have won it- Yasser Araft and Jimmy Carter.
the claim that Carter is an anti-semite is simply FALSE.
calling arafat an anti-semite is unbelievably stupid as well. what sort of palestinian leader would NOT be labeled such by Jc?
In any event i only wish the committee had heard about the UK court case before hand. Maybe they would have come to their senses.
are you talking about the court case that agrees with the consensus?
Yeah, that's the one he's talking about.
Cute, isn't it?
The Nobel Committee: fanning the fuel of envirohate for over 40 years!
Heh.
Best,
D
Nothing so far from ClimateAudit. Will they ignore it? My bet is on some half-arsed argument about group think within 24 hours, with bonus Galileo reference.
Surely not. Doesn't Steve McIntyre claim to have helped the IPCC process through peer review? Don't begrudge him his Nobel Peace Prize. I'm sure he's earned the right to download his share.
Sorry for this off topic post.
I recently gave a presentation to a friend's Audubon group titled "The Global Warming Debate." I've added a narration and converted it to a video. My goal was to create something that is both easy to understand and covers the topics that people might hear on TV , on the Internet, or in skeptical books. It should be a good companion to any (good) documentary on Global Warming. The popular press and blogosphere obsesses over these details, so it's important for the average person to be aware of the actual facts and evidence.
I'm hoping to get feedback so that I can correct any significant problems or inaccuracies. I don't want to be accused of spreading misinformation.
It is broken into 5 parts, but if you watch it from start to finish it is about 3 and 1/2 hours. So, it is not insignificant in content. While recording the narration, I went from not sick to sick to not sick so my voice can be pretty hoarse in some places. I also make no claims to my skill as a narrator.
I cover these topics:
Volcano Case Study/Lyndon LaRouche
History of Global Warming
IPCC 4th Assessment Report WGI
The Scientific Consensus
Attacks on the Consensus
Greedy Scientists
A New Ice Age
Attributing CO2
Glaciers
It's Cold Outside
Solar
Cosmic Rays
Proof!
Climate Models
The Hockey Stick
Why Now?
Energy Issues
I spent some time at the library and purchased a number of "historical" books. For example, I spent a lot of time documenting the "Volcanoes cause more ____ than all of mankind" skeptical claim, which many might find amusing. I retrieved some additional "global cooling" articles from the '70s. I have Hansen's entire 1987 Senate testimony (his '88 testimony was, sadly, missing). I have the original graph from Lamb first published in 1965 and covering the temperature of Central England. This eventually became the "global temperature of the last 1000 years" chart from the first IPCC report. I have a lot of other graphics and charts taken from journal articles, and swiped from the internet. Some should be familiar, and I hope that no one minds that I used them (I cited the sources). I have more than what is in the presentation, and can provide these documents to those who request them. However, my first emphasis is on creating a reasonably final version of this presentation.
I've uploaded the parts to one of those free web hosting sites. It is here:
cce.000webhost.org
This site may not be adequate, but for now it will have to do. I picked it mainly for its high monthly bandwidth limits, but it seems pretty sluggish sometimes.
(I looked at Google video but the videos are too small to provide the text based detail necessary.)
The video uses the H.264 MPEG4 codec and requires a recent version of Quicktime. It is 640X480 which is large enough for the detail I needed. I went to great lengths to make sure it will play in real time over a dialup modem. I might make a "broadband" version that will be 800X600.
Because it is still a draft, I ask everyone not to publicize or distribute it, beyond the blog sites that I am posting this to.
Please send me any feedback that you wish (email address on site). I have worked on this for 5 months, so I am not eager to turn it inside out. I am more interested in correcting significant errors.
Thanks!
I'm with Jc, the Nobel Peace Prize has become a worthless political statement and nothing more. Giving it to Carter last year was ridiculous. And now to Al Gore and the IPCC? What the hell does they have to do with peace?
People have been known to fight wars over water and food.
cce
And we can't forget gender inequality. Stern's report spoke about GW exacerbating gender inequality around the world. A truly frightening thought if there ever was on. I guess I may have to take my kid outta school if global temps get much higher.
Oh, by the way could you list any global warming victim who has lost their life?
Thanks.
The Nobel Peace Prize was established according to Alfred Nobel's will to award "he 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."
Gore has done nothing to this effect. He doesn't deserve the prize.
But it must be demonstrated that the effects of global warming are going to be more detrimental on the whole than beneficial. Al Gore has done nothing to prove that.
No, I'm afraid the usage of the term "anti-semite" has, from its origin, applied to those who hate Jews rather than Semites generally. You may not like the derivation of the term and may prefer to use another one personally, but that doesn't mean it is being applied incorrectly when describing Arafat as someone who hated Jews.
Yes, it appears that Wingnuttia must be apoplectic, judging from the quality of the argumentation that amounts to: The Algore shouldn't-a won, he's fat!!!
I think I'll ride my bike down to the store and buy me some yummeh popcorn. Show's gonna be good, folks. Hey, Ben! Jimmeh Carter's a great man! Yo, JC: CO2 is raising earth's temperature, despite the fact that your 'science is settled' argument is soooo 2004!
Whoo-hoo! Orville Redenbacher!
Best,
D
I suggest a quick glance through IPCC AR4 WGII. Or you can search around for the Pentagon's climate change report, if the IPCC is too new-world-order-mind-control-socialism for you. Al Gore isn't a scientist, he doesn't have to "prove" anything. He can, however, publicize the findings of scientists. For example, the findings of the IPCC who he now shares the Nobel prize with.
David wrote:
"Surely not. Doesn't Steve McIntyre claim to have helped the IPCC process through peer review? Don't begrudge him his Nobel Peace Prize. I'm sure he's earned the right to download his share."
McIntyre was a reviewer (I think the term is) and left several remarks WG1 AR4 comments. Actually, so did British Coal's Richard Courtney.
Did any other Deniers have a hand in the comments? They should all be congratulated.
I second SG:
> The prize is a joke. Kissinger got it. And a week after he was awarded it, el Baradei was out talking about war.
I would add Shimon Peres and Elie Weisel to the list of Nobel prize winning offenders. Anyway, why should the decision of a cabal of former Norwegian politicians carry any moral weight?
Also, with his capital based approach to solving the global warming problem, Al Gore is as much part of the problem as he is part of the solution.
All that said, the entertainment value of Gore winning the prize cannot be denied.
Oh, by the way could you list any global warming victim who has lost their life?
ah, Jc again showing off his ignorance...
you might want to take a look at a definition of the term CLIMATE, before you start discussing it!
people get killed by weather. attributing their death to CLIMATE can only been done, when enough TIME has passed.
And now to Al Gore and the IPCC? What the hell does they have to do with peace?
HINT: people from MULTIPLE countries have been working PEACEFULLY together in the IPCC, to fight a THREAT to all of them.
No, I'm afraid the usage of the term "anti-semite" has, from its origin, applied to those who hate Jews rather than Semites generally. You may not like the derivation of the term and may prefer to use another one personally, but that doesn't mean it is being applied incorrectly when describing Arafat as someone who hated Jews.
you are right, if you do NOT want "anti-semite" to be a useful category.
if you want the term to have meaning, you will not use it for all palestinian leaders.
Following JC's logic in #5, I expect GW Bush to stand down from the office of president due to its disreputableness after being held by Clinton and Carter and all these other commmies.
Ben said: "I'm with Jc, the Nobel Peace Prize has become a worthless political statement and nothing more. Giving it to Carter last year was ridiculous".
Yes, as we all know, Carter has never done anything for the cause of peace.
He might have (can't be sure) brokered a treaty between Arabs and Jews (Egypt and Israel) that has lasted for close to 3 decades, but hey, that's nothing, right? Who else has accomplished that or anything close since?
Let's see, Henry Kissinger? No, he tried and failed (miserably).
James Baker? Tried and failed (miserably).
Bill Clinton? Tried and failed (miserably).
Condi Rice? Never really tried but still failed (miserably)...
Let's see. Who else? Anybody?
Perhaps you can help me out here, Ben.
Who besides Carter has accomplished that (or anything even close) since?
To say nothing of carter's tireless Humaitarian efforts on behalf of democracy (eg, monitoring elections) throughout the world.
Ben, you show your extreme ignorance on the issue when you make statements like "Giving it to Carter last year was ridiculous".
If Carter did not deserve the Peace Prize for his treaty and his humanitarian work throughout the world since leaving office, then no one does.
Perhaps it is worth noting that Gore's Nobel prize was not in Chemistry or Physics. As far as "Peace" goes, the link between "saving the climate" and "peace" is flimsy at best. Can anyone note a time in the last century when war broke out because of climate change?
If the Nobel committee is truly concerned about peace, then they should certainly note the efforts of those opposed to US neo-conservative foreign policy. Just my 2 cents.
His work regarding the Sudan and Darfur is anything but "ridiculous", not to mention his past efforts.
But clearly he's not eligible because
1. He's a liberal (US definition) democrat
2. He's FAT
Oh, wait, he's not FAT. Maybe they should give it to him again!
Google "climate change" and Darfur.
Hi all
Just a politically correct decision, peace and climate in the same sentence is an oxy-moron. Poor old Alfred will be turning in his grave.
Control freaks rejoice. You and your muslim brothers will rule the world.
Regards
Peter Bickle
nanny_govt_sucks said: "As far as "Peace" goes, the link between "saving the climate" and "peace" is flimsy at best. Can anyone note a time in the last century when war broke out because of climate change?
I think the Pentagon might disagree with you. Why else would they seriously consider the issue and write a report about it?
An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security
"This report suggests that, because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change, although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."
But then again, I suspect that they might actually have thought about the issue a little bit.
Well, you can always trust the Pentagon. How's that search for WMD in Iraq going?
Just a politically correct decision, peace and climate in the same sentence is an oxy-moron. Poor old Alfred will be turning in his grave.
just because you do not see the connection doesn t mean that it doesn t exist.
Well, you can always trust the Pentagon. How's that search for WMD in Iraq going?
who again mentioned always trusting the pentagon?
hint: if the car sekler tells you that the pickup is in a perfect condition, you should have some doubts.
if he tells you it is cmpletly broken and not worth buying, you might trust him in most cases.
learn the basics about peoples intentions, to udnerstand wether they are telling the truth!!!
nannygovtsucks: "Well, you can always trust the Pentagon."
You don't have to trust them. You can read the report yourself to understand that they were not claiming that climate change will lead to war or other unrest, just that it might. That's really not a hard thing to fathom -- eg, the link between possible flooding, drought, drinking water shortages etc due to climate change and civil unrest.
"How's that search for WMD in Iraq going?"
The Pentagon (formerly called the "War Department") has gotten enough big things right over the years (winning WWII and the Cold war) that I think I will cut them a little slack. (You are free to dismiss those as small potatoes, if you like, of course)
Besides, the Pentagon was not the primary problem in the case of the Iraqi WMD. That's clear to anyone who has read the declassified documents (NIE an the like). Some within our government outside the Pentagon (at the very top) were cherry picking intelligence, so it mattered not that there were some within the Pentagon who were questioning the claims about Iraqi WMD.
Things are not always as simple as you might like them to be.
Nanny_govt_sucks: "If the Nobel committee is truly concerned about peace, then they should certainly note the efforts of those opposed to US neo-conservative foreign policy."
That would be Al Gore, too -- so any way you look at it, Al wins (and you lose)
The term already has meaning. (Whether you like the meaning is another question.) It refers to hatred of Jews.
Gore might be more convincing in that role if he hadn't hyped the WMD threat and Iraq's ties to terrorism himself. Ties he criticized Bush for ignoring.
Forget Gore. What about us paleocons, such as Pat Buchanan, who said this war was a terrible idea?
Uh, Mike.
Gore opposed the invasion of Iraq.
He made that perfectly clear. to anyone who took the time to read what he actually said before the invasion.
That obviously did not include you.
Did I say he supported the war? It would be obvious to anyone who took the time to read what I actually said that I did not.
That obviously did not include you.
In 1992, when Gore made those statements, Saddam was still hiding WMDs. It wasn't until the defection of Saddam's son-in-law in '95 that the last caches of the WMDs were discovered and destroyed. If you want another example of Gore being right, you've found it.
Everything that Gore says about the US "looking the other way" was correct. If the argument is that we should keep an eye on militant dictators with delusions of grandeur (unlike the policies of the 1980s), that is a policy that any sane person would endorse. That is entirely different than the intolerable situation that GW Bush has gotten us into today.
Mike C.;
'Anti-semitism' must be considered in the context of millenia of oppression of a minority population in European history. It should not be conflated with the anger felt by a population made an oppressed minority in their own homeland, by a subset (Israeli) of that minority in recent Palestinian history.
Defining 'anti-semitism' as simply 'hatred of Jews' is a gross over-simplification of a complex current of history.
The fact that Jews and Arabs are both Semitic tribes is merely an ironic observation of the contortions of semantics which polemicists such as yourself would impose on the world in order to fit it within your ideological belief system.
For context, the following is fascinating:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=17765
cce,
Gore at no point disputed the charge that Iraq still had WMDs including in his statement opposing the war. He was VP until 2000 and thus sat on the National Security Council. In fact, he says this in his statement opposing the war:
Gore certainly opposed the war, but was also as bowled over by the argument Saddam had WMDs as everybody in the Bush administration was. If he wasn't, then he was lying.
luminous beauty,
Only a fool believes Palestinian/Arab/Muslim hostility towards Jews ends with Israelis:
An International Herald-Tribune story from 1992:
Arabs (not merely Palestinians) still regularly regurgitate blood libels and "Elders of Zion" myths about Jews as well.
Yap, yap. No, semantics is the game you're playing. The term "antisemite" was coined to refer to people who hate Jews and if you don't like it then too bad. The word "womb" in English once literally meant "belly." Such usage is completely obsolete. I suppose you wouldn't want to impose your "ideological belief system" on me by disagreeing should I assert that "men have wombs" by your own thinking.
Because someone had to give Steve his due.
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/10/steve-mcintyre-rewarded-nobel-pe…
Mike C.,
So Ariel Sharon calling Palestinians 'cockroaches' is OK in your book?
Not to mention his war crimes. What should we call it? Is racism too strong a word?
Or is it all merely the kind of school-ground invective common among people absorbed in seemingly intractable conflict and objectively meaningless semantics that should be affectively discarded by anyone with an interest in resolving such conflicts?
Anti-semitism has historical context in the situation in Europe where Jews held a position of relative powerlessness over the gentile majority. In Israel, that power relation is reversed. The migrating meaning of the word 'womb' has no meaningful historical context. Dictionary definitions cannot address that fact and relying on them is a sign of the respondents inability to address a meaningful question about use. Perhaps you can come up with some more inane non-sequiturs?
Mike,
My original statement ( "That would be Al Gore, too -- so any way you look at it, Al wins (and you lose)" ) was in response to nanny's statement :
"If the Nobel committee is truly concerned about peace, then they should certainly note the efforts of those opposed to US neo-conservative foreign policy"
...which you obviously did not read (or did not understand, if you did)
The piece that I linked to makes it pretty clear that Gore opposed the foreign policy of the Neo-conservatives, for which pre-emptive war and the pre-emptive war to depose Saddam Hussein are the central pillars.
The idea that Gore supports neocon foreign policy is absurd on its face.
Gore supported the first Iraq war to remove Saddam from Kuwait.
Gore supported keeping Saddam in a box.
Gore incorrectly believed that Saddam was still hiding WMD even during the runup to war in the fall of 2002.
Gore did not support the 2nd Iraq war.
The youtube video posted, which involved Gore making entirely true statements is irrelevent to any notion that Gore is somehow being hypocritical in his opposition of Bush policy. He made the recent statement about WMD at the same time he was rejecting the call for war.
Al Gore's belief that Saddam might have WMD and that he almost certainly had a desire to continue to pursue them, if given the chance, is an entirely separate issue from what Gore wished to do about the problem.
As demonstrated by the Clinton-Gore approach to Saddam and in this piece written in opposition to a Bush pre-emptive war against Iraq, Gore wished to dela with the WMD issue by continuing to contain Saddam.
That approach -- containment with the help of the international community through the UN weapons inspection process and through the embargo - is completely at odds with the approach called for (and since taken by) the Neocons.
Anyone who has looked into the Neocon "Project For The new American Century" understands that it calls for an approach that is completely at odds with that of the Clinton-Gore approach vis a vis Saddam. In fact, the Neocons were quite critical of the latter containment approach in their letter to President Clinton (which essentially is the foundation of their foreign policy over the past decade).
"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."
This definition makes as much sense as reducing a building to "something with a roof on top", or saying fascism is "bad people". It has meaning in a limited number of sentences, but is inadequate in most and useless in any serious discussion (and often, as in the case of reducing antisemitism to "hatred of Jews", part of an ideological struggle).