You Call This Peace?

Sean at 10:24 am, October 12th, 2007

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.

Environment
[digg] | [reddit] | [stumbleupon] | [slashdot] | [del.icio.us]

44 Comments on “You Call This Peace?” rss feed

Paul on Oct 12th, 2007 at 10:27 am

That is my kinda office.
Abelian on Oct 12th, 2007 at 10:37 am

The guy was in goverment for 10 years he could have done more for peace and enviroment then, he did not do it. If I remember correctly several massacres occured during this time and the US did not raise a finger.
This prize is a joke
Jennifer Ouellette on Oct 12th, 2007 at 10:40 am

He comes not bringing peace, but a sword…
Adrian on Oct 12th, 2007 at 10:57 am

Why would someone that appears to support Gore still pass along the old lie about the “invent the internet” thing?

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/col/rose/2000/10/05/gore_internet/

You’re just helping spread tired old anti-Gore propaganda.
Sean on Oct 12th, 2007 at 11:03 am

Or I’m just making a joke. Both are possibilities to be considered!
Neil B. on Oct 12th, 2007 at 11:13 am

Al Gore claiming to invent the Internet is a sort of urban semi-legend (why don’t “legends” come from the suburbs or country anymore?) He really said, rather accurately, that he was on the Congressional Committee/s that worked to get the Internet (already in existence as ARPANET) out to general public use, laid foundations for national data nets, etc. He was indeed instrumental as a political force (not engineering “inventor” but it’s not a bad metaphor in context) in turning ARPANET into the widespread, public Internet that we all know and “love.”

If you want detial, see Link.
Luis Sanchez on Oct 12th, 2007 at 11:36 am

While I esentially agree with most of you, I think is also fair that Al Gore has attracted more attention to the global warming issue than anyone else.

As far as I understand the Nobel is a recognition for a single important contribution (although this is hard to achieve in a field like peace), so while Al Gore might have all sort of strings attached in many issues, as far as ambientalism goes he has indeed done a significant job.
mollishka on Oct 12th, 2007 at 12:46 pm

And now I’m feeling monitor envy.
Batocchio on Oct 12th, 2007 at 12:58 pm

He’s neater than I am!

As for inventing the internet, Sean, maybe you are making a joke, but it would help if you provided a link in that line to make clear it’s BS or otherwise set it up a bit differently. That smear is still common to read in MSM pieces, and there are still liberal bloggers who actually believe it as well, sadly. Perhaps regular readers can detect what’s snark and what’s not in your pieces (and I’m inclined to think it’s snark), but as a new reader I’m left unclear because you haven’t given me enough context. For what it’s worth.
Nate on Oct 12th, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Come on! It’s clear Sean’s making a joke.

But I’d like to take a moment and call out Abelion; it is ridiculous to blame all the actions of a -democratic- government on one man, no matter what that government did. More to the point, what power did Gore really have to stop those massacres, or even get the United States to do much about them? Are you familiar with what power the VP actually gets to wield? It’s not as much as you’d like to think - certainly not as much as the ideal benevolent dictator you seem to think ought to have gotten the prize.
Jesse Fagan on Oct 12th, 2007 at 1:51 pm

It looks like the office of someone who actually thinks and works for peace…

I’d be more afraid of the person with an office with just a pen for signing things.
Adam on Oct 12th, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Don’t say that he didn’t try to use his office for change…. Environmental concerns were always high on his priority list. Unfortunately, the office of VP is roughly the most irrelevant post in government. As for the various massacres during the Clinton administration, the gov’t was pretty interventionalist but was constantly fighting Congress over this. That administration definitely tried harder than others in recent history.
Yvette on Oct 12th, 2007 at 4:30 pm

“Are you familiar with what power the VP actually gets to wield? It’s not as much as you’d like to think - certainly not as much as the ideal benevolent dictator you seem to think ought to have gotten the prize.”

So we’re going to stop blaming Cheney now?

*runs away REALLY fast*
SB on Oct 12th, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Then again, a clean desk is the first sign of a misguided career
Reginald Selkirk on Oct 12th, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Four widescreen monitors in view. I think somebody is envious.
Matt B. on Oct 12th, 2007 at 6:07 pm

The only reason to keep a clean desk would be if it used to belong to someone important. *cough*
Brandon on Oct 12th, 2007 at 6:34 pm

The reason for giving Gore the Peace Prize was bringing to light the possible ensuing “environmental refugee” problem that would be brought about by massive short term shifts in climate patterns. See transcripts of the announcement for details. Read before overreacting with limited knowledge of an event that should not be garnering this level of media attention and outrage. Cheers.
Neil B. on Oct 12th, 2007 at 8:11 pm

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. Don’t confuse an explanation in case A based on normal standards with the idea that outliers could not exist as example case B.
chemicalscum on Oct 12th, 2007 at 9:20 pm

I’ve never got over Tipper Gore trying to censor rock lyrics.
Joseph on Oct 12th, 2007 at 11:16 pm

My understanding is that Al Gore got the Nobel peace prize for prodding humanity to avoid the distopian “Waterworld” future by taking action on climate change now. So both arguments are correct: Gore deserved the prize and Gore should have done more to prevent “Waterworld” while he was Vice-President.

On the other hand, it might be worth giving a Nobel peace prize to President Bush for his efforts in preventing the “eugenics wars” via present-day restrictions on stem-cell research.
janet on Oct 12th, 2007 at 11:36 pm

Tom Lehrer once remarked that political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Whatever he may or may not have done while VP, Gore cannot help but be a better choice.
Jack on Oct 13th, 2007 at 12:53 am

Gore: the Arafat of Global Warming.
Haelfix on Oct 13th, 2007 at 3:50 am

Surely they could have found someone better than him to give the prize too. Are they running out of candidates or something? ;x

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?

Second of all, its not clear to me whether the science is perfectly ironed out yet. IF we were handing out physics nobel prizes, we usually wait for more evidence before pronouncing a winner (note: 5 sigma certainty for a discovery in particle physics vs less than 1 sigma certainty in climate physics)

Thirdly, as others said he did nothing while he was in political power, and instead made a polemic movie thats widely recognized as having factual errors (even though the majority of climate scientists agree with the premise).

I just find this whole thing extremely silly.
Rettaw on Oct 13th, 2007 at 6:18 am

“[...] and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Now tell me how making the people of the world coooperation or doom are the future scenarios to choose from is not going to increase cooperation between nations?

After al gore and his powerpoint presentation even Bush is forced to talk about climate change! Even talking to other countries about how to stop it!
Even in my local morning newspapers there are now global climate change themed articles at least once a week, a huge change compared to the one or two articles about the IPCC reports in the science section once a year or so that happened before.
michael pierce on Oct 13th, 2007 at 6:22 am

Regardless, there’s certainly a few interesting Thermodynamics lessons on his desk.
Count Iblis on Oct 13th, 2007 at 9:07 am

Now if only he could bring peace to his own office.

His office looks rather organized compared to that of the average theoretical physicist
JMG3Y on Oct 13th, 2007 at 11:55 am

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
Sam Gralla on Oct 13th, 2007 at 1:57 pm

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.)
Jon H on Oct 13th, 2007 at 7:23 pm

“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’.
Jon H on Oct 13th, 2007 at 7:36 pm

“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.
drunk on Oct 13th, 2007 at 10:22 pm

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?
Haelfix on Oct 13th, 2007 at 10:23 pm

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.
Ben on Oct 13th, 2007 at 11:41 pm

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.)
Haelfix on Oct 14th, 2007 at 3:06 am

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.
chris. harding on Oct 14th, 2007 at 8:08 am

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
Count Iblis on Oct 14th, 2007 at 8:14 am

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.
onymous on Oct 14th, 2007 at 6:09 pm

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….
Haelfix on Oct 15th, 2007 at 4:48 am

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.
Belizean on Oct 15th, 2007 at 3:14 pm

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.

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.
Count Iblis on Oct 15th, 2007 at 5:45 pm

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
Neil B. on Oct 15th, 2007 at 6:22 pm

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.
jick on Oct 20th, 2007 at 11:13 pm

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/
ZeroSigma on Oct 21st, 2007 at 7:33 pm

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
Mary Jacobs on Nov 11th, 2007 at 8:38 pm

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.

« Mr. Gruff On the Edge in Melbourne »

Trackback URL for this post: http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/10/12/you-call-this-peace/trackback/

You Call This Peace?

44 Comments on “You Call This Peace?” rss feed

Leave a Reply

Search

Contributors

Alumni and Guests

Recent Comments:

Recent Posts

Links

Meta