Al Gore will share this year’s Nobel Peace Prize with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for their efforts to increase awareness of the challenges of global climate change.
Congratulations to them and all that, but doesn’t this seem like yet another example where the Peace prize is given to someone whose record when it comes to peacefulness is somewhat mixed? Don’t forget here folks, Al Gore is the guy who invented the Internet. Have you ever looked at the Internet? There’s no peace there at all.
Now if only he could bring peace to his own office.
His office looks rather organized compared to that of the average theoretical physicist 🙂
Haelfix wrote: “First of all, I don’t see the relevance of climate change to ‘peace’ beyond some semi muddled notion. Anyone want to explain why theres a causal between global warming and the state of peace vs war?”
Long debated pro and con, an emerging body of work supports this association, some of which is the following:
Humphreys, M. , Thorkelson, C. and Levy, M. A. (2006, Mar) Freshwater Availability Anomalies and Outbreak of Internal War: Results from a Global Spatial Time Series Analysis Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA Online
Climate-Security Connections: An Empirical Approach to Risk Assessment
Zhang DD, Zhang J, Lee HF, et al. Climate change and war frequency in eastern China over the last millennium. HUMAN ECOLOGY 35 (4): 403-414 AUG 2007
Elliott M. Evaluating evidence for warfare and environmental stress in settlement pattern data from the Malpaso valley, Zacatecas, Mexico. JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 24 (4): 297-315 DEC 2005
Scholz CA, Johnson TC, Cohen AS, King JW, Peck JA, Overpeck JT, Talbot MR, Brown ET, Kalindekafe L, Amoako PY, Lyons RP, Shanahan TM, Castañeda IS, Heil CW, Forman SL, McHargue LR, Beuning KR, Gomez J, Pierson J. East African megadroughts between 135 and 75 thousand years ago and bearing on early-modern human origins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 10.1073/pnas.0703874104
Of course Sean is making a joke, but using this as an opportunity to discuss the prize, I do think it is pretty stupid for him to get it. Even “pro global warming” scientists generally agree that his movie is manipulative and unfair, in my experience. (I mean, it is manipulative and unfair–whether or not the scientific case for man-made global warming is sound, Gore twists it in objectively misleading ways. For example, see the clip where he presents the ice core data.)
“Yvette: The VP is not granted much in official power, but Cheney pushes things and has influence because that’s how the Bush Administration set things up. It certainly isn’t the way things are supposed to be.”
Exactly. Normally, the President is not a lazy, ignorant empty suit whose adolescence lasted beyond age 40, who is thus willing to sign over most of his responsibilities and power to the goal-oriented, marginally-smarter-but-insane Vice President.
Clinton *did* support Kyoto, but it was not ratified by the Senate. And Gore has long had the reputation of being environmentally directed. In 1992 Bush the elder mocked Gore as ‘ozone man’.
“Even “pro global warming” scientists generally agree that his movie is manipulative and unfair, in my experience. ”
Well, yeah, but scientists generally are inherently concerned with neutral presentation of clean data, not with taking practical steps based on a future threat that is possible but not yet evident in the current data.
The problem is, fixing or alleviating the problem is going to take a long time. If we wait until the evidence itself is clearly strong enough and alarming enough to motivate action, it may be too late.
Scientists might be happier if Gore waited until Bangladesh is under water before he makes a stink, but that won’t do the Bangladeshis any good, will it?
Scientists who complain about Gore’s presentation are like a doctor who only voices concern about a patient’s cholesterol intake after the first heart attack.
Doctors have seen plenty of heart disease case studies so they can start warning about cholesterol long before that. Unfortunately, we don’t have other Earths to observe. We don’t have the luxury of sitting around like scientists collecting data until it’s clear that we’re screwed.
The paper mess – fine example of American technology
The screens and machines – fine example of Japanese technology
The person – fine example of an American politician engaged in media marketing
So who is going to save the world?
Hi JM, im aware of some literature on the subject but it seems rather speculative with a good dose of selection bias. Too speculative imo for acceptance in such a prestigious prize quite yet.
Note we can’t have it both ways. Assume that we were actually causing global cooling instead. I wonder if we’d still donate the prize to Mr Gore and company, or whether he’d get the prize for warmongering!
Anyway I can’t help but think there are far more deserving of the prize, the likes of Daw Aung Suu Kyi (sp) who rightfully deserved the prize.
Haelfix: Uh, Aung San Suu Kyi has already been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (in 1991).
I know you’re trying to make a joke with the reference to global cooling, but the point is that global climate change (in either direction) is incredibly disruptive. There’s no serious doubt about the science determining the existence of climate change any more, the remaining question is how bad the social consequences will be. The Peace Prize has been given several times to people or organizations for general humanitarian work, not just for peace negotiators. (Examples; Medecins Sans Frontieres, Muhammad Yunus, Mother Teresa.)
Yes I know. And dare I say, yes there is a doubt.
Particle physics has things down to 11 decimal places w.r.t experimental uncertainty. Inflationary cosmology has predictions down to 3 decimal places.
The latter has yet to recieve a nobel prize b/c things are still up in the air, even though most of us believe it.
Now, as for climate science. Well the big number (climate sensitivity), is on the order of 2-5% according to the latest IPCC paper. Ok, that standard deviation is some 3-4 orders of magnitude larger than even cosmology (which has historically been an uncertain science).
Call me a skeptic if you want, but that sort of number is pretty huge to me, and its not unreasonable to question it, much less to award a discovery to it.
The Polar Caps of Mars are also melting due to the increased energy output of the Sun. This has nothing to do with man.
Chris. Harding
Haelfix, this is about the peace prize, not a physics prize. El Baradei and the IAEA also got the peace prize. Now, I don’t think that it is established at 5 sigmas certainty that a disaster will happen if we just get rid of the IAEA.
Climate science with all its uncertainties is still far more accurate a science than the stuff politicians have to deal with.
Haelfix, if you are a reasonable person, you might consider why we demand so many sigmas before we declare discoveries in particle physics, and whether these reasons apply to climate. Otherwise, carry on with the trolling….
I’m trolling now? Oye!
Very well, I accept the premise that its not a science award so the burden of rigor is of a lesser standard. But I disagree with comparisons to other harder sciences. Yes there are a lot of random fluctuations in the experimental results of particle physics (lots of 1-2 sigma spikes all over the place), but there are also a lot of uncontrolled parameters in climate science as well (even the macroscopis descriptions). I mean grid spacing and parametrization in the gcms is probably a good example of this.
I realize its a hard subject, and people do the best they can, but somehow implying that there isn’t larger uncertainties in the consensus view relative to other science fields is disengenous.
Yeah, it’s always better to tell outright lies to your patients to get them to do what you, as a superior and enlightened being, know what’s best for them.
History is full of examples where prolonged bad weather caused severe problems:
Great Famine of 1315–1317
Extreme weather events of 535-536
Year Without a Summer
Haelfix: OK, but don’t confuse uncertainties in what might happen (because of all the factors and some randomness involved) with the basic theoretical basis, the CO2 forcing, being understood. Also, dealing with risk means acting to stop dangerous things that will likely happen, not about being sure.
Belizean: I’m not sure what you’re point is. Are you saying, GW type ideas are lies, or that not talking about it is lying? BTW, if you are from/in Belize, that country is going to get lots of flak from global warming effects.
Sam Gralla said: Even “pro global warming” scientists generally agree that his movie is manipulative and unfair, in my experience.
Umm, I’m not a climate scientists, but there are zero or very few “anti-global warming” climate scientists. The “pro-global warming” phrase is about as informative as saying “pro-general relativity” physicists.
Besides, real “pro-global warming” scientists seem to be generally agreeing that his movie is mostly correct and to the point:
“For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don’t detract from Gore’s main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change.”
from: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
Count Iblis:
So a historian that points out that bad weather that happened in 535 caused problems, then about 800 years later more bad weather caused problems and then surmises that bad weather another 800 years later ~2100 may cause problems has just as much claim to the NBP as Gore and the IPCC has, right?
That has as much, if not more, rationality behind it as “the long term weather is changing, and that can lead to war”.
Giving a NPP for entirely hypothetical future conflicts being allegedly averted is tripe regardless of who gets it. A NPP should by all rights go to someone who a) ended running conflict or b) demonstrably averted an imminent and quantifiable conflict of international proportions.
But that is true only to people who believe that a Nobel should mean something more than a fancy equivalent of Time’s “Person of the Year” award. People are well aware of the Nobel science prizes. Thus there is an assumption by association that the Peace prize, being a Nobel, is on par. Quite frankly it is not and has not been for at least a couple decades, arguably further back (i.e. Quakers over Ghandi 1947).
The criteria for “peace” is so broad that virtually anything can be attributed to a NBP. Essentially, this means that over the decades, any real value of prestige to the NBP has eroded year after year in effect becoming “we the committee would like to recognize [group,person,both] here but can’t do so in any of the other fields”. That, IMO, cheapens the awarding to those who actually worked undeniably to stop or prevent clear and decisive conflicts. Essentially, it becomes a political award as opposed to a recognition of direct action.
In the end the veracity of AGWH, EiB, or AIT, or even the IPCC is irrelevant, as stated essentially by the committee. The award is for preventing unnamed, hypothetical future conflicts that may never have come to pass with or without the IPCC or Gore. If the world as a whole does not manage to control the level of CO2 in the atmosphere (a la Kyoto), and we are not beset by these mythical future conflicts, no mention will be made of this in relation to the 2007 NPP.
If mankind finds ways to adapt as it always has, and prevent such conflicts, only if a singular group or person is attributed with it and that person is in agreement with the dominant world political space at the time will they be given an award for essentially, exactly what IPCC and Al Gore were just given one for.
/ba
Actually, enviornmental protection and alternative energy does have a lot to do do with the peace issue. Aside from the propaganda B.S. of our current moron President, the decision to invade Iraq — and spending something like a half-trillion dollars so far to do so — has a lot do with America’s insatiable appetite for foreign oil. And America’s appetite for foreign oil, and its lack of development of energy alternatives, has everything to do with America’s idiotic leadership, especially among the Republican Party, a Party of total suck-ups to the oil and coal lobbies.