Kowabunga

Just when we thought it wasn't possible for the Nobel Peace Prize to become even less relevant than when it was after being awarded to Jimmy Carter (the man who brought us a totalitarian theocracy in Iran, fostered Islamic Terrorism, and helped arm North Korea with nuclear weapons), the International Peace Research Institute has announced that it has nominated Gore for the Peace Prize for his work on Global Warming.

Why would they award the Peace Prize to one of the biggest contributors to Global Warming, the man with the carbon footprint the size of Mount Everest, is beyond me. Political expediency does come to mind.

From Times Online:

"A prerequisite for winning the Nobel peace prize is making a difference and Al Gore has made a difference," said Boerge Brende, a former Norwegian environment minister who nominated Gore and Watt-Cloutier.

"I think they are likely winners this year," said Stein Toennesson, director of Oslo's International Peace Research Institute. The winner will receive $1.5m (£750,000) in prize money.

It sounds to me more of a case of building on the fear that it is man-caused carbon emissions causing global warming rather than on the natural cycles of the Earth, Sun, and solar system, as being the reason to give the Boracle the Peace Prize. It is a blatant attempt to further legitimize a badly formed theory for the causes of Global Warming over the vast amount of research being done that proves a different theory as being the real cause of the current warming trend.

The article has a couple of extremely biased statements in it:

Global temperatures will rise 2.5C within the next century even if the world hits its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, according to the scientist leading research into the issue.

Okay, they are potentially half-right: temperatures are likely to increase even if greenhouse emissions are cut (no thanks to Al "Carbon Bigfoot" Gore). The problem is the use of "will rise." This is all theory not fact. Will temperatures rise 2.5C? Maybe. But we won't know until 2100, and there is a likelihood that the Earth will go through a slight cooling trend before then due to cycles in sun spot activity. To claim that it is a fact that temperatures "will rise 2.5C" is very biased and bad reporting.

Consequences could include widespread starvation, as farm yields fall 50% in parts of Africa, water shortages for 300m and the destruction of 20-30% of species.

More bias and missing quite a few points.

Widespread starvation and drops in farm yields in Africa will be offset by the agricultural production in northern regions of Canada, Europe, Asia, and even Greenland will become farmable again as it was during the last major warming phase: the Middle Ages (or Viking Age). With greater farming capacity offsetting the potential reduced farming capacity in areas that become to hot and arid, combined with better/faster transportation of goods, starvation may well not happen, unless we allow those many corrupt regimes in Africa to continue to exist (the main cause of starvation in Africa is corrupt governments, not lack of food supplies).

Water shortages can also be counterbalanced by building desalination plants to provide fresh water for drinking, bathing, and watering crops.

As for the destruction of 20-30% of species, this is an unknown but dubious claim. Just a few days ago a number of new species of plants and animals were discovered in Vietnam. Will Global Warming also trigger the rise of other new species? Will the species that do go extinct do so as a result of Global Warming (doubtful) or the activities of man (like the dodo bird or golden frog)? Or will they merely migrate along with the changing climate?

If Al Gore is given the Nobel Peace Prize, then it will be clear that the International Peace Research Institute is no longer interested in promoting Peace in the world, but rather pushing a politicized agenda on humanity.

Tags:

Gore Nobel Peace Prize Boracle Carbon Dioxide