What IS worthy of recognition is the amount of impact that the film has had. I am still deciding how I feel about the Nobel award, but there isn’t any doubt that the film HAS had an impact. Regardless of people’s viewpoints on the film and whether Global Warming is actually something to be concerned about, people ARE now thinking about carpooling more, changing their lights to CFL’s, taking fewer trips to the store, considering the cardon footprint of the things they buy, etc.

And regardless if their motivation is to reduce greenhouse gasses or just saving money on their utility bill, people ARE making an impact, even if it is still a small one… but when you add everyone’s small impacts together, pretty soon you have a large impact.

So why not give an award to a guy who has been a large catalyst for many Americans to finally realize what others around the world have known, and been concerned with, for quite some time. No one else in the U.S. — especially not this Administration, who is so heavily tied to oil consumption — has deemed it worthy enough to acknowledge? Should it have been the Nobel Peace Prize? Perhaps not… but what other award is there that the world community could give that would show that they are finally glad to see that the U.S. is finally getting involved?

Of course, the history of the Nobel Peace Prize isn’t exactly pristine. Even Teddy Roosevelt, who was a key player in fomenting the Spanish-American War and who begged Coolidge to be allowed to serve in WWI, had one of those on his mantle. I suppose we can only appreciate the times when a Grameen Bank gets the award, and roll our eyes when a Gore or Roosevelt get it.

Welcome back! I just read the email address from your comment this morning and realized who you were.

“He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change…”

“He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

“In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

“The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.”

My favorite thing about Gore receiving the award is that just a few days ago a judge in England ruled that the movie contain a nine errors. There’s a good post about it here: http://britainandamerica.typepad.com/britain_and_america/2007/10/british-judge-f.html

Jesse Walker at Reason wrote this great piece today on how to win a Nobel Peace Prize:
http://reason.com/news/show/122958.html

I know you didn’t advocate for Gore to receive the award…I’m just defending myself prematurely from charges of being part of the right-wing noise machine because I’ve criticized Gore’s award.

I think your analysis is about the same as mine. The award is pretty pointless and awarding it to Gore doesn’t do much to enhance its stature.

The history of the Nobel Peace Prize has long been controversial. Remember all those Israeli Prime Ministers who have received it? How much peace is there in the Middle East today?

Also, I’m not sure I understand why you think the IPCC is so much more deserving than Gore…for the record, they don’t do any research, they merely compile available reports and other data. Their biggest achievement has been the Kyoto Accords…what’s the difference between what they say and what Gore says, anyway?

Of course I’m at a disadvantage because I have not seen the Gore film. Nevertheless, even if I were better informed, I’m not sure if I would agree that a guy who produced a documentary on climate change is deserving of the “peace” prize.