Bro Deal said:
I disagree. Mixing politics and science is a bad idea, especially in places like the U.S. where there is large anti-science component to the population. Long after the money is spent, the only thing that remains of value to something like a Nobel prize is the prestige, and that is affected by how fair the award process is viewed. Handing out prizes of the same name based on politics damages the Nobel "brand name," if you will.
One of the keys to maintaining a brand is not to dilute it. If the Nobel foundation wanted to give out a political based peace prze, they should have endowed a prize of a different name and a distinct organization that has nothing to do with their usual awards. Instead they risk tarring the reputation of their regular awards amongst people who disagree with results of their political ones. It may not matter to the scientists, but the man on the street might start to wonder just what candidates or discorveries were overlooked because of the politics of the day. Inevitably this leads to a decrease in the awards' prestige.
Al Gore is a particularly bad choice because of the politcal baggage he carries. It would be different if he had a real accomplishment that could be pointed out to justify the award. If he had brokered a treaty to reduce carbon output or if he had raised the CAFE limits on new vehicles, something objective that benefits the world, then he would be a much less controversial winner. I expect the Nobel prize to tatke a lot of flak in conservative circles over the choice of Al Gore; being tied together with the U.N. is not going to helpt matters either.
Instead of an objective accomplishment he is awarded based on a touchy-feely concept like "raising awareness," a term that brings up visions of hippies with love beads holding hands and thinking positive thoughts. Gore's attempts to bring the issue to the forefront have been hampered by his political past. Whenever global warming is brought up among conservatives, you get cracks about Al Gore. It's like Michael Moore attempting to cast light on something; no matter how good of a job he does, a significant faction of the population will dismiss him out of hand because of his past. A spokesman for a company or a cause should have the respect of the people he intends to communicate with. Al Gore does not have that.
If Al Gore really wanted to do something about carbon emissions, he should be championing nuclear energy instead of rehashing info that was better presented on Frontline and Nova.
Well, to each his own. Since the Nobel Peace prize is not a Nobel Prize in science, it matters little, to me and a lot of other scientists, that it is not based on objective matters. In fact, there can be no objective matter upon which a Peace prize is selected. Clearly, the holders of the Nobel brand, i.e. the committee, have different opinions than you. I'd say their opinions are the ones that count.
As for what conservatives think, I could care less. It's obvious what the conservative "opinion" is on the science supporting global warming. As such, the "opinion" isn't worth considering.
Political baggage is for politicians to worry about. I'm fully capable of seperating Gore's work toward increasing awareness of global warming, from any alleged baggage he has. And FWIW, any baggage is a wholly political opinion that is dependent on the political opinions of the person holding said opinions.
Championing awareness and action on global warming has nothing to do with nuclear energy. Seperate issues, and the mention of it is simply a red herring.
Touchy feely? Gee, have you looked at all the other Peace Prize winners? They were all judged on "touchy feely" criteria.
The Michael Moore comment is another red herring and completely irrelevant. The science behind global warming is solid, and the data supports the theory. The data that supports the theory is also increasing with the arrival of better tools for the study. FWIW, Michael Moore is not a documentarian. Never was. As such, it's not right to judge his films as documentaries. They cause people to think or to have some emotional reaction, which is their purpose. He admits as much.
The relevance of global warming to the world today is significant, and its consideration as a topic worthy of a Peace Prize and world discussion is obvious: there are very few issues in the world that have an effect on every person on the planet in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the awarding of the prize to Gore is doubly apropos given that the US is one of the largest contriubtors to global warming, and given that the elected "leader" of the US has steadfastly done nothing--except silence his own scientists on the matter and have reports on global rewritten to fit the "leader's" agenda. I don't see anyone else that has done more to raise the stakes and promote the issue than Al Gore.
I think it would be a mistake to dumb down the Peace Prize so that the "man on the street" either agrees or can understand it. That's not a consideration for the science prizes, is it? Has anyone else here studied the fine spectral structure of Hydrogen spectra? Does the man on the street have any clue why Steven Chu won the prize in Physics and how laser trapping is used to cool atoms or how that work allowed us to create Bose-Einstein condensates? It's been a while since I've heard anyone on the bus, in a restaurant, or on the street discussing Feynman's developments in quantum electrodynamics. Maybe those awards were awarded improperly since most people really don't understand what they're all about. Maybe they diluted the brand by being intellectually elusive to the average person.
