It is still silly to claim Gore and IPCC did not deserve it.
http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/al-gore-nobel-peace-prize/
There most certainly has been a lot of controversy about all of the Nobel Prize categories, not just about the Peace one.
In general, the best that can be said about the recipients of the Nobel Prize is the same that can be said about the recipients of the Oscars - it’s not a completely random choice, but it’s not a very good choice either.
So you would doubtlessly agree that Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan should both have won the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has always been very well thought out excepting this year. I have yet to meet one chemist that thinks a couple of guys that did theoretical work on something three years ago that has not even begun to pan out, and as I understand it, is full of holes, should have gotten it. Most seem to think there was some under the table deal with Russia.
That said, while I often don’t consider the winner to really be a chemist, I understand why they get shoehorned into the chemistry prize. The chemists that I believe have deserved it have generally won.
What GIGObuster is trying to say is there is a proximate cause relationship between global warming and war. This is his logic: if I have factories that cause acid rain to fall upon your crops and you go to war with your neighbor for food rather than let your people starve, I have caused war to happen, by the rule of proximate cause. If Al Gore comes along and helps me improve my factories so they don’t pullute, and your crops grow again and the two of you decide to stop fighting, Al Gore has caused peace by the rule of proximate cause.
I am not endorsing this logic but it is worth debating seriously.
For starters, it is not just my logic.
Second, another point of the IPCC and Gore is to point at what would happen if nothing is done, it is a warning as to where and how resources should be employed and to get ready for a very probable future where the Al Gore and the IPCC warnings and recommendations are not used at all. In other words, just by pointing out what is likely to happen in the future with a business as usual model, governments and the military can be prepared and not only be ready for future problems, but also be prepared to prevent problems caused by the coming climate disruptions.
I didn’t say it was your logic. I said “this” logic, as in the reasoning behind what you’re implying.
As I said, this falls under the definition of a legal concept called “proximate cause”. In layman’s terms this means “but for event x, event y would not have happened”.
It is still a debatable subject, but the more I think about it the more I am inclined to your point of view.
What fighting did Al Gore and the IPCC help stop? Be specific please, I want the name of country, name of leaders on both sides of the conflict, and some actual proof Al Gore and the IPCC were able to mediate a peaceful solution.
Hell, I’ll even be nice and give a consolation prize if you can just tell me how much CO2 Al Gore and the IPCC have prevented from entering the atmosphere.
I understand the logic. I’ve understood it since 2007 when the prize was given out. The problem with that logic is that using it, ANYTHING can be claimed to be related to world peace.
Free trade increases the wealth of third world nations, which reduces civil wars, therefore anyone who endorsed NAFTA deserves a Nobel Peace prize.
Education leads to citizens being wealthier and rising to middle class. Again, increasing wealth tends to decrease things like civil wars. Therefore every single teacher in the world deserves a Nobel Peace prize.
Having two superpowers in the world tended to keep wars localized in fear of WWIII breaking out, therefore every communist era Russian and US leader deserves the Nobel Peace prize.
Sending aid to disaster areas helps prevent things from becoming so bad those areas turn to lawlessness, civil strife, and other assorted non-peaceful things. So anyone who donates a dollar just to get Santa to quit ringing that fucking bell for 5 god damned seconds deserves a Nobel Peace prize.
George Bush vastly expanded aid to Africa to combat AIDS, malaria, etc. Which means less civil strife in Africa thus more peace. So the guy who invaded two separate countries actually deserves the Peace prize more than Gore did. After all, Bush’s efforts actually lead to results while Gore can not claim the same.
History shows an Israel that has a weak military will be attacked by it’s neighbors. Therefore, any US politician who supports selling Israel weapons deserves a Nobel Peace prize.
Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that those involved in the Manhattan Project deserved the Peace prize using similar logic.
See what I mean? While I can follow the logic, it is so tenuous that damned near anything can be said to deserve the Nobel Peace prize. Which makes the prize only slightly more relevant than a gold star and pat on the head from the teacher just for taking part in the spelling bee.
Good points. Thanks!
:rolleyes:
That is not the main point.
If not for the warning of what is likely to happen in the future** if nothing is done **(the IPCC also reports on where and when the effects of the climate disruption are more likely to show) the coming disruption would had caught countries by complete surprise in the future.
War is more likely if we do not prepare for an scenario where we do nothing. Doing nothing or almost about CO2 emissions is a strong possibility considering the leadership we got in many countries like the USA.
Everyone gets a star and a pat on the head. Only one person or organization gets an NPP.
I don’t think Nixon should have, any more than Kissinger: the secret bombings of Cambodia, and the idea of making war to make peace just don’t strike me as very consistent with the peace prize.
Reagan, though, I could go for: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” was one of the simplest and most profound statements made during the ending of the Cold War. It highlighted the errors of regimes that imprisoned their own people. And, his pressure on the USSR helped to set the stage for the ending of the Cold War.
Nah, once one thinks a little bit more almost all his points make no sense.
There is no need to go for ridiculous examples when there are better actual undeserved ones, like Kissinger or Arafat.
WarmNPrickly writes:
> The Nobel Prize in Chemistry has always been very well thought out excepting
> this year. I have yet to meet one chemist that thinks a couple of guys that did
> theoretical work on something three years ago that has not even begun to pan
> out, and as I understand it, is full of holes, should have gotten it. Most seem to
> think there was some under the table deal with Russia.
Excuse me, but what are you talking about? Here’s a list of all the winners in chemistry:
Go through the list and tell me in what sense this year’s chemistry prize was any worse than some of the previous ones?
As the international community is doing nothing anyway, the efficacy of the IPCC is highly questionable.
And to ne honest, I don’t thnk for an instant the IPCC has a clue what the specific effects of global climate change will likely be. Nobody knows precisely what they’ll be, which, of course, is one of the things about it that makes it such a hazard.
All the Nobel Committee needs to to to become relevant again is add some categories with more modern appeal: NASCAR, monster-truck rallying, professional wrestling, freestyle rap-jamming . . .
What I’m trying to say is that the IPCC also reported on what is more likely to happen if nothing is done, an item that would be reckless for planners to ignore.
Now that is really ignoring what they say, or rather, you are ignoring that the IPCC is just an organization that checks the current science and publishes what they are telling us about climate change and the effects.
Using science is better than not having a clue, like what deniers often do.
Doing nothing will make it more likely that oceans will rise and natural disasters will become worse in the future, it is not difficult to see who will be most affected by the ocean rise, it is harder to be specific on the effects of climate change on land, but the evidence I have seen tells me that it is not impossible to identify the most likely affected places and plan accordingly to keep the peace.
It’d be kinda nice if that one person or organization was actually more deserving of it than everyone else though.
Meh. The award criteria are totally subjective, just like most awards. I mean, in the music industry you have the subjective Grammy and the objective gold/platinum record, but there’s no accounting for “peace”.
Personnaly, I’d gather all Nobel Peace Prize nominates in one room, and tell them that they will all be executed, save the one guy with the Prize in his hands.
Peace always comes with a prize they say.