No matter what one thinks about the global warming issue, it is an incredulous stretch to award a peace prize for work in this area.

Is this a "jump the shark" moment for the Nobel peace prize?

My wife and I visited the Nobel museum in Stockholm this spring. Very moving; there's a constantly running slideshow of all the winners with some words or recorded speeches playing. Hearing Winston Churchill's "we will never surrender...", Dr. King's "I have a dream.........", and such moved one to tears.

I'm certainly glad that we saw it prior to this nonsense.

A peace prize, "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".

I wonder if the prize can be rescinded when it's all proven to be natural, not man-made?

---

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Sam Adams

I agree with Tine. You only need to look at how Milwaukeeans react to Waukeshans over a request for Lake Michigan water to see how quickly resources can be depleted and old grudges ignited.

---

@MegMcKenna - Twitter
"City On the Lake" Weblog

That would be if you believed that we had any control over global warming. Now I'm not saying there are man-made emissions and that REASONABLE efforts can be made to control them, but I heard somewhere (sorry, I don't have a cite but I will look for one) that of all carbon/garbage/greenhouse gas emissions that under 2% of them are man-made.

And even if we reduced our carbon/garbage/greenhouse gas emissions to nothing that we would have absolutely no impact.

Plus - I'm not sure if we need to question the integrity of the scientist or simply point out the uncertainty of the science, but some scientist involved in pushing forward this agenda was the guy who 30 years ago thought that our carbon/garbage/greenhouse gas emissions were sending us into Global Cooling. hmm, imagine that.

Oh well... I've vented. Back to work.

---

Edit to add:

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!

SOURCE: http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

---

"Yep, I'm on Nancy's side on this too." - CrustyTheClown

I counter that Al Gore is not an environmentalist.

---

"Yep, I'm on Nancy's side on this too." - CrustyTheClown

Al Gore won an award for his excellent work in junk-science and really making the world aware of it's effects.

---

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Sam Adams

Crusty won't fall for a such a cheap flame-bait attempt!

---

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Sam Adams

Concerns about global warming have nothing to do with whether or not CO2 is good. It's a naturally occurring gas, as are all the greenhouse gases. Increases in these gases causes temperatures to rise. Global warming can happen naturally. It's actually essential to life on earth. The problem now is that industrial emissions and deforestation are creating the conditions that lead to global warming. These are things that any third grader could tell you. Nobody disputes that global warming is a real phenomenon. The debate is over the cause. The overwhelming majority of environmental scientists and organizations throughout the world have endorsed the theory that human activity is contributing to global warming. This doesn't mean that we're the only factor, but it means that we are a factor and maybe the biggest factor at the moment. This is not junk science. The junk scientists are the handful of crackpots who insist that human activity could not possibly be changing the environment. That kind of claim is absurd. How could we exist on earth and not have an impact? If we accept global warming as a consequence of the natural growth of the human population, then so be it - but there are likely to be problems if global warming continues. We can't necessarily stop or reverse global warming, but we can reduce our impact on the world's climate and maybe slow the process. That's all that Gore and the folks at the UN are talking about doing.

Al Gore is being recognized for sounding the alarm and for making sure that the issue is not forgotten. He deserves the award - not to mention the Oscar and the Emmy. Is he up for a Grammy this year?

---

Hitchens’ Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

a) Any third grader that has been through the brainwashing.

b) Nobody? Really?

c) The debate is whether or not man can impact. I'm not saying we start spewing as many pollutants into the air as that would be unpleasant, but everyone driving a Prius isn't going to help.

d) One could argue that it is.

e) I think it's arrogant of us to think that we could impact it? Seriously, there used to be glaciers in Wisconsin. Who/what caused that? Were the dinosaurs emitting too much CO2 in their SUVs?

Anyways... these brilliant scientists were right on in the 70s when this came out: Time Magazine Global Cooling Article

Seriously people, these are theories which are great. But you can't tell me that some scientist can tell us how much things have warmed/cooled/whatever in the past 10,000 years because they didn't have proper instrumentation to record temperatures. They can try to guess what they were but I guarantee you they will come up with whatever suits what they are trying to support.

---

"Yep, I'm on Nancy's side on this too." - CrustyTheClown

Thre is no disagreement that the issue of global warming should be discussed. The question is why wasn't the award for science? No one has produced a cogent response meaningfully linking this work with peace. Predictably people are answering different questions which have more to do with U. S. politics than global warming.

The significance of the award is being diluted.