OSLO, Norway - Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and lay the foundations for counteracting it.
No word yet whether the award will be shared among the sizable percentage of skeptics on that Panel, whose names were affixed to the document endorsing global warming without their consent - or in some cases, their knowledge.
World leaders, President Bush among them, congratulated the winners, while skeptics of man's contribution to warming criticized the choice of Gore.
Guess where I found the skeptical criticism? About 20 paragraphs down. First I had to wade through scads of this:
For his part, Gore in a statement said he was " deeply honored ... We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."
Apparently there is no Nobel Prize for Load of Hooey. Maybe Al can invent it.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."
Perhaps this is how they justify giving a "peace" prize to a scientific theory - one, moreover, that is quite possibly a total crock. I also think that increasing the temperate zone could result in more land suitable for agriculture, which means more, not fewer resources, and therefore lesser conflicts over those resources. Finally, most of the wars of the past 100 years have not been driven by scarcity, but by ideology - exterminate the other, destroy the infidel, etc. etc. Well-fed armies aren't going to suddenly forget that they hate (fill in the blank).
It's doubtful the Nobel Committee could qualify for one of their own prizes.
There's more... under "Strong Reaction" on page 2 of the article, there's a leadoff quote from a FoxNews.com columnist, followed by three hurrahs. Then there's an explanation of expanding the definition of "peace prize" to accomodate environmentalists and economists.
Why you wouldn't win a Nobel Prize in Economics if you were an economist is somewhat of a riddle. Solve it and you're eligible for next year's Peace Prize.