Anoint Him!
An enthusiastic advocate of awarding Al Gore a Nobel Peace Prize, PJM columnist Jules Crittenden contends that anointing the "fiery prophet of global warming" would continue the Nobel's committee's grand tradition of honoring "empty, fraudulent or hypocritical gestures."
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Al Gore at long last stands to be recognized for his great efforts on behalf of humanity. The fiery prophet of warming is favored for the Nobel Peace Prize.
It makes sense. If you read the list of Nobel Peace Prize winners, you’ll see King Canute, king of England, Norway and other parts Nordic, is also on the list. It’s right there, posthumous, 1035 AD. Go ahead, have a look.
Well, I thought I saw it there. Legend has it Canute got one. Not for stopping the tide … Canute was actually trying to point out that was a silly idea, and pointedly failed … but for bringing peace to his realm.
But that was a different, less subtle, more direct era.
In that earlier time, to be recognized for establishing peace, one actually had to establish some. Canute did it mainly through liberal application of the battle ax in addition to judicious yak-yak. Today, a more sophisticated Nobel Prize Committee generally is more interested in empty, fraudulent or hypocritical gestures. Any demonstrable relation to actual peace, unnecessary.
Which makes Gore a perfect candidate on all counts. It is perhaps preferable that he has not contributed to any identifiable peace. That renders the award unassailable, and ensures there will be no aggrieved party to squawk about the terms under which peace was imposed.
The ideal Nobel laureate does not grubby his fingers with actual peacemaking, but is preferred to have simply created the impression, through dramatic gestures, of being keenly interested in peace. One must also represent a philosophy acceptable to the committee. So, for example, the pleasant and adorable commie dictator Mikhail Gorbachev gets one for capitulating in the Cold War, but the jingoistic B-movie actor Ronald Reagan, who some observers suggest may have compelled and coaxed Gorbachev to do so, did not.
It is not necessary to be pure of motive and deed. So, for example, the corrupt terrorist Yasser Arafat gets one, as does former UN Secretary, nepotist and facilitator of corruption Kofi Annan. One may also have set the terms for war through appeasement of bellicose parties, hence the awards for Jimmy Carter and Mohammed el-Baradei. Gore, whose transgressions in the field of global warming would appear to be limited to exaggeration and distortion of evidence, and the maintenance of excessively carbon-burning estates and fleets of vehicles, barely squeaked by under the strictest standards of hypocrisy and uselessness.
As a quasi-religious icon who actually has very little to do with peace, Gore might be seen to have more in common with actual religious icon Mother Teresa. But the Catholic nun, who often spoke admiringly of peace, came dangerously close to ruining her chances by actually dirtying her hands tending to the poor, the sick, the wretched in a slum in Calcutta. Gore is in no such danger.
The Nobel Prize Committee is venturing into bold new territory if it gives the nod to a Gore laureate. Rather than lauding imaginary or failed peaces past and present, it will be recognizing the peace in a conflict that has not occured, may never occur, and crediting an effort that may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with the cause of that hypothetical conflict … an effort couched in terms that even the faithful suggest was a tad overstated.
Anyway, it’s not like it hasn’t gotten warm before. And while the temperature may or may not be edging up, now more or less to the level it was at the time of Jesus, the role of human activity is highly debatable, or should be. In any case, global-warming enthusiasts tell us, at this point it is a matter of damage done: The water level is rising, SUVs or no SUVs. Which would suggest that the hypothetical peace to which Gore is theoretically contributing is actually unattainable.
But Gore’s battle with the forces of nature on behalf of beleaguered humanity, or if you prefer, with the forces of humanity on behalf of beleaguered nature, or with the forces of nature and humanity on behalf of beleaguered nature and humanity –it really doesn’t matter, for in this debate, one simply must state terms in order to make them so–, will stand as a brave contest unparalleled since Canute commanded the waves to halt. We could go back to Moses, who actually parted the sea, at least as convincingly as Gore has contributed to world peace, but that involved the reprehensible oppression of a sovereign pharaoh and interference with his defense forces in execution of national security duties, hence his absence on the Nobel roster. If halting the advance of the tide is an act of peace, then cynics might say the hard-headed Dutch as a practical matter have done more on behalf of the dove and the olive branch. But that’s a petty local engineering project, and Gore is, symbolically, with great fanfare, according to him, saving the entire world.
If Canute, petty medieval peacemaker, entered the annals of legend simply by trying to show his sycophantic courtiers he was only human, Gore has set himself a far more ambitious task. To demonstrate to all that he is legendary, and can command nature, perhaps as such even qualified to a position of actual leadership over humans. A Nobel will ennoble this noble quest.
Jules Crittenden is a Boston Herald editor and blogs at Forward Movement.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
20 Comments
Zhombre:And as a follow up to awarding Harold Pinter for Literature, Tony Kushner would be an excellent choice.
Oct 10, 2007 - 8:40 am BMoon:If Arafat can be awarded a prize for promoting peace, I suppose there is nothing any more incongruent or satire-worthy with awarding someone with equally an delusional Messianic-complex as Gore.
The image of him, with his following of credulous sycophants, upholding his book and video whilst trying to stop the forces of nature, is quite humorous though.
Oct 10, 2007 - 9:11 am BMoon:If Arafat can be awarded a prize for promoting peace, I suppose there is nothing any more incongruent or satire-worthy with awarding someone with equally an delusional Messianic-complex as Gore.
The image of him, with his following of credulous sycophants, upholding his book and video whilst trying to stop the forces of nature, is quite humorous though.
Oct 10, 2007 - 9:12 am Fred Beloit:Very witty post, sir. Without doubt my favorite winner of the prize is: RIGOBERTA MENCHU TUM. One of the many fine liars who won, she probably did so because of her name. Her name is exotic, comes trippingly to the tongue, is easy to remember, and has that beautiful note of finality that puts a period to those lovely jungle sounds. Tum. Take that you who hold falsity as something bad, whereas Rigoberta saw the value of lying to demonstrate that there is a higher truth out there…somewhere.
Oct 10, 2007 - 9:55 am David Thomson:I am convinced that greed plays a major role in the global warming hysteria. The money involved is mind-boggling. Literally thousands of jobs depend on the continuation of scaring the hell out of the American citizens. Voters would ruthlessly reject Democratic Party candidates along with their country club Republican allies if only they understood the financial disaster awaiting them if the global warming crazies have their way. This nonsense will minimally force our economy into a severe recession.
Oct 10, 2007 - 10:46 am socalangel:Well, as long as he has gotten over his depression at losing the election. Great article, and good fodder for discussion around the dinner table as I attempt to deprogram my child. Keep up the good work!
Oct 10, 2007 - 10:47 am Wolf Pangloss:The best part of this is that even though the Goracle claims to have presented the settled science, he is not actually qualified to get a Nobel prize in any sort of scientific discipline. Perhaps if there were a Nobel for Slide Shows or anti-Capitalist Propaganda… But he is perfect for the Peace Prize, because the Peace Prize requires neither peaceful intentions (see Yasser Arafat and former nominees Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler), nor any moral backbone (see Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan).
Oct 10, 2007 - 11:30 am Herr MorgenholzH:To the best of my knowledge, Al Gore has neither killed anyone or expressed hatred of the Jews, which makes him far more qualified for this prize than either Muhammad “Yasser that’s my Baby” Arafat or Jimmy the Dhimmi Carter. Give it to him. It’ll be the final nail in the coffin of what’s left of his pathetic reputation.
Oct 10, 2007 - 5:34 pm Smokey:Great article! As Herr MorganholzH said above: “Give it to him. It’ll be the final nail in the coffin of what’s left of his pathetic reputation.”
And what’s left of the so-called ‘reputation’ of the Nobel Committee, too.
On a more positive note, a judge in the UK has ruled that “An Inconvenient Truth” is untruthful:
http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html
Check it out.
Oct 10, 2007 - 6:09 pm ecj-maxine:To “HIS” discredit, “HE” should be given the Nobel Peace Prize only when he gives us all a little additional peace by taking down his feeble attempt at becoming a cable broadcasting media mogul.
Yes! I am talking about pulling the plug on CURRENT TV (ok, so nobody watches it anyway, but it would at least be a gesture of Peace)!
A little more discredit of the “Oscar Winner” and potential Nobel laureate can be found here:
Oct 11, 2007 - 7:19 am Boris:http://maxine-log.blogspot.com/2006/06/al-gore-not-seeing-2020-at-canada-2020.html
You know, you start off with a pretty good point about the Nobel Peace prize, but why do you have to go into global warming denial?
Your source for the “debatable” aspect of human involvement in global warming goes to a non-scientific documentary with fraudulent graphs. Is the right incapable of determining a reliable source? It’s embarrassing.
Oct 11, 2007 - 9:15 am Smokey:Boris: You complain about a ‘reliable source,’ but you give none of your own - because there aren’t any, maybe?
For a wide-ranging chart showing the complete lack of ANY correlation between CO2 and global temperatures over the entire history of the Earth, see:
http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_927×695.jpg
Note that the data comes from a peer-reviewed article in Science magazine.
Where are your globaloney gods now?
Oct 11, 2007 - 11:58 am Boris:Smokey,
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. See Arrhenius’ work (1896). and refinements by Calendar (1940s), Plass (1950s), and of course the radiation codes analyzed by Ramanathan and Coakley (1978).
No one makes the argument that CO2 is the only driver of climate, so we don’t expect to see correlation. However, CO2 is the most important driver in the current climate system.
It would be a good idea to understand the theory you are trying to discredit. Jules should follow the same advice.
Oct 11, 2007 - 12:31 pm Fred Beloit:Boris:
And the very potent and powerful warmings after the ice ages? What was the “driver” for them?
“However, CO2 is the most important driver in the current climate system.”
Oct 11, 2007 - 1:27 pm one of many:Can you prove the power of this nouveau “driver” and show why the other “drivers” are no longer so important?
Oh boy, now I am worried. Given the history of the Nobel Peace prize, it looks live the fight against AGW is going to get deadly. How many people have to die before the Nobel Committee realizes that giving out peace prizes according to the standards they use just causes more violence?
Oct 11, 2007 - 9:02 pm davod:Boris - another graduate of the Gorebot school of climate change.
Oct 12, 2007 - 1:56 am Wolf Pangloss:Boris:
No one makes the argument that CO2 is the only driver of climate, so we don’t expect to see correlation. However, CO2 is the most important driver in the current climate system.
Nonsense.
Correlation does not prove causation. But causation requires correlation. A cause of climate change will be correlated with climate change, either simultaneously or in the lead. Boris says in one sentence that CO2 is the most important driver of climate change. This requires a correlation. In the same paragraph Boris states that nobody expects correlation. Those who attempt to practice science are held to the standards of science and mathematics. They are not allowed to claim that “if a therefore b” has no relation to “a is correlated with b or the lag of b”. If they do make such a claim then they thereby prove they are not conducting science.
Oct 12, 2007 - 7:40 am Boris:“Boris says in one sentence that CO2 is the most important driver of climate change. This requires a correlation. In the same paragraph Boris states that nobody expects correlation.”
CO2 is only a driver of climate–a climate forcing–today, especially in the past 30 years. In this time period we do see a correlation, but it is not perfect because of interannual variation and climate perturbations such as Mt, Pinatuubo.
In the past CO2 has been a feedback to orbital forcings–the Earth’s orbit changed, allowing more insolation, which heated the oceans, which gave off CO2, which caused more warming.* Perhaps you guys should read the IPCC report and attempt to understand the arguments presented before you shout out your “gotchas.”
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, accounting for about 15% of the greenhouse effect. Added CO2 causes warming. This is undisputed in the scientific literature.
*Before you ask, yes we are sure that today’s CO2 increase is from the burning of fossil fuels. Isotope ratios and the rising CO2 levels in the ocean prove this beyond dispute.
Oct 12, 2007 - 8:02 am Fred Beloit:Boris, one of the top climate experts in the country doesn’t seem to agree with you and St. Al. Read and learn:
Oct 15, 2007 - 11:57 am Teflon Dad:http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html
Q. How do you pronounce ‘Pea’? Ans. ‘P’.
Q. How about ‘Ce’? Ans. ‘C’.
Mr. Gore won the P(ea)C(e) Prize, it has nothing to do with ‘peace’, and it is the Nobel not noble.
Oct 16, 2007 - 2:04 pm