The Nobel committee has more or less become a joke. The reason why is all too evident from how Gore was able to win the "Peace-prize". It is only kept alive by sensationalist interest from the media, who like to promote it as the pinnacle of achievement in terms of awards.

It's not that I dislike Gore. I may disagree with him on a few things, but I have a general respect for him. However, when someone wins something like a "Peace-prize" for promoting an environmentalist agenda over someone who has actually brokered peace-deals and worked for international peace, what little credibility there might have been seems to have been thrown out the window. The same thing applies to a scientific organisation devoted to climate study getting the award instead of a grassroots organisation whose members have literally put their lives on the line to help people in unstable areas.

Should Gore or the IPCC be awarded for their environmental efforts, one has the feeling it might have been better to set up a seperate environmentalism award. One can certainly make the argument that it is one of the main issues of our time. As it is, the Nobel Committee simply seems to go with the flow of public and popular opinion, which makes it difficult to take it seriously.

The committee's reasoning is that climate change is a potentially significant cause of future wars. As committee member Jan Egeland points out, the first climate war is already being fought, in the Sahel belt of Africa.

Personally I'd prefer to see Noan Chomsky get the award.

Noam.

Why does it sound like your saying that an environmental issue has no social consequences? From what I see, wars will be fought and are being fought because of global warming, because of people immigrating, territorial fighting over water. These issues stem from this little environmental problem. Rather than trying to just broker a peace agreement, we should seek to understand the causes of strife and fix that. There is no peace as long as the problem remains unchecked. The fact that Gore put the issue up and really made a move to not only get it across to the American public, but also internationally makes it worth the Peace Prize. The question has changed from "Is global warming really occurring?" to "What are we going to do about it?." We've seen this change even through the conservative bodies of the United States in recent years. The conservative religious are up-at-arms about global warming. While Gore certainty did not start the fire, he certainty has a hand at making the public aware about the issue. Most people, even the ones that don't agree with the facts, will probably name Gore as the poster child for the global warming issue.

Would have it been better to make an environmental category to fit this in? Probably. Does it fit in with the Peace Prize? On various levels, yes. Are we so dense that, we need a direct link to peace to see why this award should be given?

He better not run for president.

The Nobel committee has more or less become a joke.

Because of Gore and the IPCC? Hardly. This award is no more tangential to the cause of peace than have been several previous prizes. One could argue that Norman Borlaug's prize (1970 - for his contribution to the green revolution) didn't fit in as a "peace" prize, either - but I certainly wouldn't. The Nobel committee has done far worse:

1973 - Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho

Two bigger assholes would have been hard to find.

No, the Committee has not lost credibility solely because of Gore and the IPCC. This is not the first time the Committee has bent over to public opinion nor made what appears to be a poor choice. They have made significant blunders in the past. Kissinger and Mother Theresa are arguably among them. In my eyes the award held little credibility already. The award to Gore and the IPCC is merely the latest evidence that the Committee appears to be slaves to fashion. What I mainly object to is the apparent public opinion mirrored in the media that the Nobel Prize is somehow the pinnacle of achievement. I don't think so, and frankly I am past the stage where I take it seriously any more

And no, I am not saying that environmental issues do not necessarily entail social consequences. What I am saying is that even with potential social conflict as a result of environmental policies and climate change, there are still people who work more actively for peace in general (some of whom put their lives at risk on a daily basis), and thus (in my view at least) would be more deserving of a so-called "Peace" award.

As I said, I have nothing against Gore, and I do not mean to belittle his efforts on behalf of the environment and global warming. I just think that when it comes to the general pursuit of world peace and stability there are more suitable candidates.

Fox,

I don't really disagree with what you've said. Oddly, the awards in science are often conservative in the extreme. Most of the time, awards in chemistry and physics are made many years after the impact of the recipients' work was already obvious. I guess that is mostly as result of competition between a lot of nearly equally deserving contenders.

Good ol's Snachez, taking a bid the in the blame game. Gotta love America's impotence in politicking.