There’s a lot of good news on the consensus front in Europe, noted by Hans Labohm, a Dutch economist and IPCC reviewer. It shows that skepticism on climate change is gaining a foothold throughout the countries of the EU. Far from buying the alarmist orthodoxy, opinion in Europe are divided about the truth and extent of global warming. It probably benefited more than any other continent from the medieaval warming period that permitted the expansion of agriculture and, some historians hypothesise, helped fuel the Renaissance. Russian scientists are even pointing to solar activity, which seems headed for another “Maunder Minimum”, and predicting a Little Ice Age, such as Europe experienced in the 18th century. Imagine what today’s efforts to prevent warming will look like if that happens. Our children will think we were insane. Imagine a world in which they ban hybrids and subsidise large, heavy gas guzzlers on safety and environmental grounds.

On the Nobel Peace Prize, Labohm notes the political composition of the Norwegian panel that awards it, and adds a telling quote:

Little wonder Francis Sejersted, past chairman of the committee, admits: ‘Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.’

Speaking of children, he answers the concerns of at least one commenter on my blog, who is convinced that we must all act immediately to help her children survive; to wit:

And what about our kids? Well, they have survived the story of Santa Claus without any visible scars. Wouldn’t they survive the nonsense of man-made global warming as well?

Labohm has written a useful and heartening roundup of which people and organisations aren’t meekly swallowing the politically-correct Gorthodoxy that dominates the media today.

Update: Link to comment pointed in the wrong direction. Fixed.

Though the possible set of inconvenient puns has been utterly exhausted in the last few days, if you haven’t seen it yet, Bjørn Lomborg’s commentary on the subject of Al Gore’s Peace Prize is worth reading. Notably:

The number of hungry people depends much less on climate than on demographics and income. Extremely expensive cuts in carbon emissions could mean more malnourished people. If our goal is to fight malnutrition, policies like getting nutrients to those who need them are 5,000 times more effective at saving lives than spending billions of dollars cutting carbon emissions.

Likewise, global warming will probably slightly increase malaria, but CO2 reductions will be far less effective at fighting this disease than mosquito nets and medication, which can cheaply save 850,000 lives every year. By contrast, the expensive Kyoto Protocol will prevent just 1,400 deaths from malaria each year.

While we worry about the far-off effects of climate change, we do nothing to deal with issues facing the planet today. This year, malnutrition will kill almost 4 million people. About 3 million lives will be lost to HIV/AIDS, and 2 ½ million people will die because of indoor and outdoor air pollution. A lack of micronutrients and clean drinking water will claim 2 million lives each.

With attention and money in scarce supply, we should first tackle the problems with the best solutions, doing the most good throughout the century. If we focus on solving today’s problems, we will leave communities strengthened, economies more vibrant, and infrastructures more robust. This will enable these societies to deal much better with future problems - including global warming. Committing to massive cuts in carbon emissions will leave future generations poorer and less able to adapt to challenges.

In Michael Crichton’s memorable metaphor of environmentalism as religion, Gore is the high priest, preaching fire and brimstone unless we repent our sins. We are the chanting supplicants, and in our fear and panic we are regressing to human sacrifice to appease an angry Gaia.

In a previous post, I lauded the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize award:

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.

Having thought about it, in the light of Darren’s intelligent analysis over at commentary.co.za, I fear I have to change my mind on this. If Al Gore’s prize has nothing to do with the original charter of the prize, then to be consistent I’d have to say neither does the award to Mohammad Yunus. He may be an inspiring person who has done great things, and he’s a shining example of exactly the kind of economic theory I support, but, like Al Gore (and a whole lot of other recipients in the last few decades), one can’t exactly describe him as “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.”

This had me chuckling:

I think it’s a complete farce. I mean, the Nobel Prize now has all the credibility of the Eurovision Song Contest.

– Martin Durkin, director of the environmental polemic The Great Global Warming Swindle, talking to Sky News about Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize.

“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.

Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Laureate, former Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, and recipient of the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism, the Gandhi Peace Prize and the Magubela Prize for Liberty is devoting his time to the more serious pursuits of happiness.