Earthquake warning for Stockholm
“Oh Christ.” That was 88-year-old Doris Lessing’s exasperated, charming response to CNN, when she disembarked from a black cab in London to be informed by the news cameraman that she had won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Why she’s so surprised is beyond me. She’s a pretty good author, has been both prolific and influential, and has sure waited long enough for the ultimate accolade. And at least she’s a writer.
What mystifies me is the Nobel Peace Prize, which according to Alfred Nobel’s will is to be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
So who gets it? A failed candidate for US president and a bevy of bureaucrats. The former has recently been going around the world using dodgy numbers and emotive images to whip up mortal fear in the hearts of millions, calling for states to impose, by force, restrictive and oppressive measures on free, industrious people. For good measure, the politico-bureaucrats have been living off taxes collected by force while they base fearful prophecies of apocalypse on statistics of dubious provenance in their efforts to scare people into expanding the power of national governments and supranational institutions. For all their entertainment value, how either Al Gore or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change created fraternity between the nations, abolished or reduced standing armies, or held and promoted peace congresses, is beyond me.
Mind you, I guess Al Gore did invent the internet. Peace, bro.
It’s a funny affair, the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s been inconsistent at best. Last year, the choice was inspired, selecting Muhammad Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank, which has done Bangladesh in particular and the Indian subcontinent in general a great service by proving that wealth can be created among the world’s poor through peaceful trade, without pouring billions down bureaucratic black holes. Today’s award exactly contradicts the philosophical basis and spirit of last year’s prize.
That earthquake warning, incidentally, has its epicentre in Norra Begravningsplatsen, pictured above.
At least Gore is doing something to make people aware of the problem, even if he is alarmist at times and even if he has made mistakes. It’s sure better than burying your head in the sand and pretending the problem doesn’t exist, which George Bush has done.
For the record, I hope he runs for president. He’d sure be a lot better than Hillary Clinton. Sadly, I don’t think he will.
I disagree that George Bush has pretended the problem doesn’t exist. Wish he did, because in all probability, the problem doesn’t exist, and if it does, it is impossible to adequately quantify, given our current knowledge of the climate system.
I also disagree that exaggerating a problem is better than underestimating it. Neither leads to sensible cost-benefit decisions on how best to spend scarce resources. In fact, exaggerating a problem is worse than underestimating it, because it involves a higher likelihood that states will impose new laws and regulations, restricting freedom, restricting economic activity, and costing taxpayers and businesses money. This reduces prosperity, which is exactly what people need to deal with the real problems they face.
As for Gory Al running for president, I wish he would too. He’d be a joke. Sadly, I also doubt he will. With a big bright gong and superstar status among the hippie crowd and anti-globalisation groupies, he can make millions. He can strut around the world pretending to be more important than Jimmy Carter. He’d jeopardise his entire entertainment career if he took a job in which he actually had to get his facts straight and had to make decisions with real consequences.
I’m not surprised. The Peace prize has always been a sham of the Nobel awards featuring such “peaceful” alumni as Yasser Arafat.
Hell, you don’t exactly see the IPCC or Gore sweeping the Nobel science awards now, do you?
There is something bad happening to the planet, Dude. Come to China and see for yourself. Clean air, places to escape to and food will become more scarce as the process continues. And you don’t have to be a genius to work out that that is a major threat to world peace.
So if it can be said that Gore, through his effors, even if they are flawed, has done something to change the global paradigm on what each of us can do to help avert a disaster, wouldn’t it be fair to say that he is contributing to fraternity among nations?
Failed? I blame a flawed design of a ballot paper in Florida.
Al Gore did not “invent” the Internet, nor did he claim to. However, he was instrumental in its creation. Vint Cerf, who is the closest any one man can be to actually having invented the thing, has clarified the matter here: http://www.politechbot.com/p-01394.html
Since I wrote most of this response anyway, in another context, I might as well post it here:
Presumably what I’ll see in China will be pollution, and large areas of undeveloped land developed. They make great pictures, and some of it is worth preventing on its own merits, but I’m not convinced they are particularly relevant to climate change.
I’m of the opinion that the climate is changing, as it always does. Whatever impact we have is not well understood, but to the extent that it is, our impact is complex, both positive and negative, and relatively small compared to natural drivers of climate change.
The climate also appears to have stopped warming, so measures to deliberately interfere with the climate system to stop the warming appear a little late and a little daft.
Either way, to the extent that we do cause it harm, the solution is not urgent, expensive, repressive government intervention that restricts development and prosperity and leaves people less free and less able to deal with whatever future changes climate may bring.
As for environmental issues causing war, when we have gone to war, it has usually been over political power, religious differences or territorial control, not over resources. And when we did, it wasn’t because they were depleted, but because they were more costly to buy than steal. No amount of environmental bliss is going to reduce the causes of war.
Historically, nations have indeed gone to war over resources, but in a society where people are free to buy and sell resources, without political control and restrictions, this happens less and less often. The rewards just aren’t worth it.
Actually, Al Gore’s efforts to impose global political restrictions and controls over resources and how they’re used increases the likelihood of war over resources, because there won’t be any other way to obtain them.
I also don’t think he’s done much for the fraternity between nations. He has done nothing to advance the actual science or the serious debate, and I don’t see how public awareness of global warming in any way advances “fraternity between the nations”, let alone reduce standing armies or convene peace conferences.
What he does deserve a medal for is for having done the most to strike terror into the hearts of millions. Not to mention setting brother against brother, because one doesn’t recycle and the other is an insufferable sanctimonious prat.
And finally, Al Gore lost in 2000. Simple. In the US, you win the presidency by winning a majority in the Electoral College. He didn’t. The argument that the election was stolen from him on this, that or other technicality is old, tired and
false.
In fact, the last president to successfully steal an election was JFK. It’s also an example of how to handle losing that Al Gore might have bothered to study before turning 2000 into a litigation farce and eight-year whine.
I don’t think anyone here has suggested that the 2000 election was stolen, though what happened in Florida was deeply suspicious.
But, while it is true that Bush won the election, one must not forget that his election did not represent the will of the American people. More Americans voted for Gore than voted for Bush.
Don’t forget it.
The popular vote is irrelevant (though for what it’s worth, Gore won only a plurality of the vote, not a majority, and Bill Clinton won only 43% of the popular vote in 1992).
The US presidential election represents the will of the state electors, as the constitution requires that it does. The purpose of this system is to protect state rights. It prevents results in very populous states from swamping the choices of small states. Otherwise, a fairly small majority in, say, California or Texas could make the votes of most of the other states irrelevant. Hardly fair on the other states, now is it? Cause for secession, in fact. Arcane though the Electoral College appears to us outsiders, it is critical to the fair and proper functioning of a federal system of government, and for almost a quarter of a millennium, it has ensured a stable and just election system.
So forget it. Even if Gore never has. “I used to be the next president of the United States.” Guffaw, guffaw.
Well, at least Ivo is consistent in following the lockstep of his other convervative commentators. I bet Duncan yesterday that Ivo would discredit the Nobel awards and other recipients so as to discredit Gore. Yup, Ivo followed the example of his comrades. Be original, Ivo, there’s a good fellow. Show some actual thought, rather than do what Rush-Coulter-Townhall et al do. That *would* be a change.
[…] to Al Gore and IPCC are offered by Carl of Greencars. Ivo, a magazine columnist/journalist does not see how the Al Gore and IPCC win fits with Alfred Nobel's will in starting the prize, saying For […]
[…] to Al Gore and IPCC are offered by Carl of Greencars. Ivo, a magazine columnist/journalist does not see how the Al Gore and IPCC win fits with Alfred Nobel's will in starting the prize, saying For […]
Welcome to my site, Frank, and thank your for lifting both the tone and the substance of the discussion.
I trust you’re enjoying the fruits of that inspired, daring bet — or did Duncan not accept it? If so, I feel honour-bound to apologise for tipping my hand by publishing a post critical of Al Gore the very day before he won his gong. It would hardly be fair of him to accept your wagers if he has the advantage of actually reading this blog.
Speaking of reading what I write, the only other Nobel Peace Prize recipient I mentioned I called “an inspired choice”. Who do you think I discredited?
On the subject of my “comrades”, I’m afraid I have to disappoint you again. As you may know, I live in South Africa. As you may know, Rush Limbaugh is not broadcast here. I wouldn’t know what he sounds like. The last time I read Ann Coulter was when you e-mailed me one of her columns, and that was some considerable time ago. In fact, I suspect that only foaming-at-the-mouth liberals like yourself actually read her, if only so they can attribute her opinions to anyone they disagree with. Finally, despite the fact that you once recommended Townhall.com very highly to me as a repository of intelligent and reasonable opinion, I’m afraid I don’t read it because last time I checked it did not publish an RSS feed.
At the time I wrote this post, I had received only a CNN news alert and a text message on my mobile phone. I did not copy, plagiarise, or follow the example of anyone. Perhaps you’d care to show some actual thought before you barge in here to make such accusations against a professional columnist and journalist.
On the charge of consistency, I’m afraid I don’t know what to say. You got me there.