As I’m sure you already know, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. This is greated as big news in some quarters, or as an affirmation of the correctness of his global warming scare job. Look, if Al Gore really believed in what he’s peddling, namely we all have to make significant lifestyle changes to reduce our carbon emissions or we going to face deathly consequences, he’d change his own behavior. But he doesn’t – he burns through carbon based energy at a rate far beyond the average American. Maybe Al Gore is entirely correct in his predictions – but I’m not going to believe a man who doesn’t practice in the slightest what he preaches.
So what does his victory really represent? Coupled with other recent Nobel Peace prize picks, it is clear that the European leftist elite, not content with rendering their own countries impotent, are trying to influence American politics to their liking. If the Nobel Peace Prize committee wants to reduce the presitge of their own award, have at it boys. If they think that a bunch of Norwegian elists sway my thinking, they are sadly mistaken.
#1 by Carl Drews on October 16, 2007 - 9:28 am
Quote
I don’t believe that Al Gore’s personal lifestyle is a valid objection to the science behind global warming theory. Rick Anthes, the president of NCAR (the National Center for Atmospheric Research) rides his bicycle from Boulder up to the Mesa Lab to work every day( http://www.ucar.edu/communications/staffnotes/0406/commuter.html ). Various scientists at NCAR support the idea that human activities are contributing to the currently observed global warming( http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp ). Does Anthes’ eco-friendly commute mean that the climate science done at NCAR _is_ correct? I don’t think it does. The science must be judged on its own merits.
My impression of the Nobel Peace Prize has always been that it is awarded to encourage peace efforts in progress. This practice is unlike the science awards, which reward long-recognized achievement: Watson and Crick figured out DNA in 1953, but did not win the Nobel Prize until 1962 (with Maurice Wilkins). Contrast that 9-year delay with Henry Kissinger, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for arranging peace between North and South Vietnam. That so-called peace was shattered in 1975, when the armed forces of North Vietnam conquered the South. If Kissinger had had to wait 9 years, he probably would not have gotten his award! I agree that the Peace Prize committee’s practice of making not-yet-mature awards will result in some obvious historical mistakes, but they’ve always done it that way. Peace IS politics. In recognizing peace efforts that are underway, they are _always_ trying to influence current political events throughout the world. That practice is not new.
The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded half to Al Gore, and half to the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC relies on the work of roughly 2,000 scientists ( http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/12/nobel.gore/index.html ). A few dozen of those scientists work at NCAR and the University of Colorado in Boulder, where I am a graduate student in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. I know some of them. Let’s try a little math: If the IPCC gets half of the monetary award ($1.5 million) for a total of $750,000; then each scientist gets ($750,000 / 2,000 =) $375. I’d frame that check and hang it on my wall. Or maybe I’d make a really good color copy, cash the original check, and hang the copy on my wall! Does each scientist get to take the Nobel Prize home for one night, like the Super Bowl trophy?
NCAR is having a reception on Thursday afternoon to honor the scientists who served on the IPCC. Kevin Trenberth was already scheduled to give a public lecture on global warming at 3pm, so they simply scheduled the reception after his talk. Here is Trenberth’s abstract:
NCAR/ESSL LECTURE SERIES GLOBAL WARMING: COMING � READY OR NOT! THURSDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2007 Kevin Trenberth, Climate and Global Dynamics Global warming is unequivocally happening, according to the IPCC, and is caused by human activities, mostly the burning of fossil fuels. This talk will outline the sources of the greenhouse gas emissions causing the problem and the widespread evidence for warming. The long lifetime of carbon dioxide and the energy infrastructure guarantee future increases in emissions for decades and thus substantial further global warming. Future prospects using climate models and the paleoclimate context will be given. I will introduce the international framework for dealing with this problem, including the IPCC, the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and efforts to control emissions through a carbon tax, or cap and trade solution. Recent emissions are increasing in spite of the Kyoto Protocol. Consequently, adaptation to the coming changes must occur, but with how much loss of life and strife, and how much will be planned? Individuals can do a lot, but the problem is global. Building consensus and political will, along with the needed institutions and international governmental mechanisms in a framework of cooperation will become essential. Our planet may become unrecognizable in 50 years and we owe it to the future generations to build a more sustainable way of life.
Long ago I promised in this space to report on what I found out in my climate classes. I hope to keep that promise soon without neglecting my Fluid Dynamics homework.
#2 by Kevin Murphy on October 16, 2007 - 11:32 am
Quote
I don’t think winning the Nobel Peace Prize is a valid reason to believe in man-made global warming, nor do I find Gore a persuasive spokesman for global warming science since he so clearly does not believe what he says about it.
Frankly, I put this award on par with Rigoberta Menchu – a total fraud who won the award.
Just because Al is a fraud doesn’t reflect on the science because he isn’t doesn’t have an actual connection to the science.