Al Gore and the Mission of the Nobel Prizes (This Choice Marks the end of a 105-year era)

American Thinker ^ | 10/12/2007 | John Berlau

[SirLinksalot]

Return to the Article

October 12, 2007

Al Gore and the Mission of the Nobel Prizes

By John Berlau

Al Gore has won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. This choice, more than any other Nobel Committee selection, marks the end of a 105-year era. In direct contradiction of Alfred Nobel's last will and testament, the selection of Gore essentially means the Peace Prize can no longer be said to be an award for improving the condition of humankind. Looking at Gore's writing, it's far from clear that Gore even believes that humanity is his most important priority.

Not that there haven't been controversial or dubious selections before. Jimmy Carter was selected by the committee in 2002 in what was partly a political swipe at the Bush administration's foreign policy. Yasser Arafat was given the Peace Prize despite his ordering the killing of scores of innocent civilians.

But, at the very least, the stated aims of Carter and even Arafat were the improvement of human life. Gore, by contrast, does not even profess improving the human condition as his fundamental goal. Rather, his stated desire is to stop human activity that he sees as ruining what he calls the "ecosystem." Awarding the prize to Gore in 2007 is the equivalent of honoring the Luddites who tried to stop the beneficial technologies of Alfred Nobels's day.

A common theme of selection for the Nobel Peace Prize and the other Nobel awards has been the use of science and technology to overcome problems afflicting humans such as starvation and disease. This fulfills the vision of Swedish inventor and entrepreneur Nobel, who pioneered the product of dynamite. For the first time, an explosive device could be stored safely and detonate predictably on a large scale. Nobel's products were used for war, as even the most primitive explosives had been for centuries. But dynamite also vastly improved the 19^th and 20^th century standard of living through its use in the construction of buildings, railroad tunnels, and sea passages such as the Panama Canal.

In creating the annual prizes for physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and the promotion of world peace (roughly the same five fields for which Nobels are awarded today  today), Nobel stated the desire in his will to honor

"those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."

According to Alfred Nobel: A Biograpy by Kenne Fant, an earlier draft of Nobel's will stipulated that prizes in all categories should be

"a reward for the most important pioneering discoveries or works in the field of knowledge and progress."

But for Albert Gore, Jr. the fields of knowledge and progress are suspect, and so are many types of technology with benefits to mankind. This is a man who speaks despairingly of "our civilization" and sees as flawed man's attempt to rise above "nature." He describes global warming as "the category 5 collision between our civilization - as we currently pursue it - and the earth's environment."

He has been critical of "civilization" and human technological advancement even before global warming became his main issue. In the introduction to his 1992 book  Earth in the Balance, Gore writes,

"In one sense, civilization itself has been on a journey from its foundations in the world of nature to an ever more contrived, controlled and manufactured world of our own imitative and sometimes arrogant design. And in my view, the price has been high."

But exactly what part of "controlling" and "contriving" does Gore object to?  Does he really think the price of curing diseases through new drugs or feeding the world through advance farming techniques been too "high." In many passages of his writing, the answer seems to be yes. This puts him conflict with the vision of Nobel as well as that of many of the previous prize recipients honored for their pioneering achievements in agriculture or medicine.

Several Nobel prizes, for instances, have honored life-saving breakthroughs in stopping cancer. But in Earth in the Balance, Gore wonders aloud whether cancer treatments should be used if they would result in the harvesting of what he considers to be to be too many trees. On page 119 he writes:

"The Pacific Yew can be cut down and processed to produce a potent chemical, taxol, which offers some promise of curing certain forms of lung, breast, and ovarian cancer in patients who would otherwise quickly die. It seems an easy choice - sacrifice the tree for a human life - until one learns that three trees must be destroyed for each patient treated."

As Gore's apologists have pointed out, he does later in the passage list one of his reasons as saving some trees for future generations. But there is no discussion in Gore's passage about a basic solution to this dilemma -- simply plant new groves of yews!  Thus, he still seems to be giving the life of an old Pacific Yew a competing claim with a dying cancer patient.

But it's not just cancer patients that come into Gore's technological crosshairs. Gore also points out the supposedly dire effect on nature of growing more food to feed the hungry. Ironically, he blasts what is called the "green revolution," the high-yield farming and plant breeding that has made countries like India and Pakistan self-sustaining in agriculture. Norman Borlaug won the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering these techniques and bringing them to the Third World.

But in Earth in the Balance Gore decries "the much-heralded Green Revolution" as well as biotechnology that promises to further revolutionize agriculture. Gore concedes,

"To be sure, these same new ‘miracle crops' ... have temporarily conquered hunger in a few of the Third World Nations."

But, he concludes,

"the higher yields made possible by genetically altered crop strains often cannot be sustained over time, as the pests and blights catch up to them and as overirrigation and overfertilizing take their toll on soil productivity."

Modern farming techniques, he writes, are

"a set of dangerous bargains with the future worthy of the theatrical legend that haunted the birth of the scientific revolution: Dr. Faustus."

This is an example of how Gore alarms and misleads at the same time. Yes, any agricultural improvement may have negative side effects that need to be fixed. But India's "temporary" conquering of hunger has lasted 40 years, and the nation is now a net grain exporter. Borlaug has also been honored by politicians of both parties, as he is a senior consultant to the Carter Center and was surrounded by President Bush and the House and Senate leaders Pelosi and Reid when he received the Congressional Gold Medal this July. Gore's disparaging of Borlaug's prize-winning achievement shows how far out of the scientific mainstream Gore is on this and other issues.

Unfortunately, Gore still has plenty of influence as an ambassador of science to the media and lay public, and a Nobel Peace Prize may magnify this even more. The results of honoring Gore's dishonoring of human progress could be tragic and devastating. Look no further than Gore's tirades against another Nobel-winning achievement: the life-saving insecticide DDT.

The Nobel Committee recognized DDT's immeasurable contribution to public health. In 1948, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Paul Hermann Muller, the Swiss chemist who discovered DDT's effectiveness at combating the insects that spread deadly diseases. As the Nobel web site entry for Dr. Muller states, "Field trials now showed it [DDT] to be effective not only against the common housefly, but also against a wide variety of pests, including the louse, Colorado beetle, and mosquito," The web site notes further that during World War II, DDT "proved to be of enormous value in combating typhus and malaria -- malaria was, in fact, completely eradicated from many island areas."

And after World War II, DDT eradicated malaria in vast areas of the world, including parts of the southern United States. But it was vilified in the 1962 book "Silent Spring" written by Rachel Carson, a woman Gore has called a heroine. As a result of the ensuing U.S. and worldwide near-prohibition on making DDT, several millions have died in Africa from mosquito-borne malaria that DDT could prevent.

Even after the turnabout by the World Health Organization, the New York Times and other establishment venues, Gore has never once said that Rachel Carson was wrong. As late as 1996, he called DDT a "notorious compound" that "presented serious human health risks." The tragedy is that on this issue, Gore could have used his tremendous political capital to make a difference in reducing malaria deaths.

And Gore is still hindering anti-malaria efforts by spreading misinformation about its main causes. In his movie and book An Inconvenient Truth, Gore blames global warming for recent outbreaks of malaria in the cooler regions of Kenya. But as I have reported in my book Eco-Freaks and elsewhere, the World Health Organization had documented epidemics in those very regions in the 1940s, long before global warming was on the radar screen. The malaria was wiped out there, as elsewhere, by DDT, and unfortunately, as elsewhere, has now returned in the absence of DDT's use.

Also unfortunate is that the establishment media for the most part has not seen fit to correct Gore on this and many other dangerous misstatements in An Inconvenient Truth. Now, they may be even less inclined to do so. Never before would the awarding of a Nobel Prize have to potential to due so much damage to public health and human progress. If the Nobel Committee goes with the "politically correct" winds, it is incumbent on every Nobel laureate who cares about the legacy of Alfred Nobel to denounce this terrible decision.

Updated 9:02 AM EDT

John Berlau is a policy director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of the Amazon best-selling book Eco-Freaks.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/al_gore_and_the_mission_of_the.html at October 12, 2007 - 11:21:19 AM EDT

[Publius6961]

I have never done boycotts, albeit perhaps subconsciously.

There isn't a single Swedish product that I use (that I know of). Time to look into that, though.

We need a patriot American billionare to fund a yearly 'Nazi Enablers" Prize to honor Sweden...

"This has remained the position of the Swedish government even after it was revealed in 2000 that those who had participated in Nazi atrocities were alive and living in Sweden. All the efforts to induce a change in Swedish policy on this issue have hereto failed. Sweden is currently weighing the abolition of the statute of limitations on genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes but will not do so retroactively, so there is no chance that any Nazi war criminal will ever be prosecuted in Sweden."

What Nazis?

[r9etb]

While I think that giving the Peace Prize to Gore is idiotic, the author's opening paragraph sends him straight off the rails:

Al Gore has won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. This choice, more than any other Nobel Committee selection, marks the end of a 105-year era. In direct contradiction of Alfred Nobel's last will and testament, the selection of Gore essentially means the Peace Prize can no longer be said to be an award for improving the condition of humankind. Looking at Gore's writing, it's far from clear that Gore even believes that humanity is his most important priority.

All it takes to dismiss this article is to acknowledge the obvious -- that the Nobel committee buys into the idea that global warming will result in disaster.

Once you do that, it makes perfect sense that they would honor the person who is the best-known spokesman on the topic -- Mr. Al Gore. Their position would be that dealing with global warming is of supreme importance "for the good of humanity."

Right or wrong in their belief on global warming, they're acting consistently with Mr. Nobel's instructions.

I hate it when pundits expend all those words on a premise that is fatally flawed. This guy no doubt has his own opinions about global warming and Al Gore ... and he expects the Nobel Prize committee to share his opinion. Well, they don't. Tough noodles, pal. Think it through next time.

[rurgan]

The Nobel committee was long ago taken over by international socialists and they make their awards strictly based upon the contribution to the advancement of socialism made by the nominees. When looked at it in that light, Gore is indeed deserving because if he and the left are able to destroy the Western world's economy with their junk science, it would be the greatest event in the long ugly history of the socialist movement regardless of how many wars and how many deaths it may cause.

You hit the nail on the head. The Nobel Peace Prize should be renamed to "The Nobel Prize for the Advancement of Socialism". No Surprise a Democrat , Al Gore won that. I bet Hillary Clinton will be a future winner.

[LiteKeeper]

In light of the recent British court ruling that his movie is a political, one-sided fraud, and the children shouldn’t see it without being advised of at least 11 substantive errors, this award is a farce!!!!!

[Friend_from_the_Frozen_North]

If they can revoke Olympic Medals because the contestants were using steroids, why can't they revoke the Nobel Prizes when the recipients almost certainly had to have been using Crack?

Oh no wait, maybe it was the Nobel Committee that was using Crack; never mind...

[stevio]

Look at the bright side. He may run for president now.

[Publius6961]

Once you do that, it makes perfect sense that they would honor the person who is the best-known spokesman on the topic -- Mr. Al Gore. Their position would be that dealing with global warming is of supreme importance "for the good of humanity."

Using that torured logic, it would also make sense to award it to the next "embracer" of selective euthenasia of undesireables, as it would certainly be a benefit for the remaining "humanity", in the nobel sense, exclusively, of course.

[Publius6961]

In light of the recent British court ruling that his movie is a political, one-sided fraud, and the children shouldn’t see it without being advised of at least 11 substantive errors, this award is a farce!!!!!

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but has anyone found a document that lists all of the 11 (9?) errors that the British court specifically listed?

Thank you in advance.

[IMTOFT]

“Nobel Prizes have lost all credibility since they awarded one to little Jimmy Carter.”

My sentiments exactly - what a shame for what was once the preeminent award ever given.

[IMTOFT]

“Nobel Prizes have lost all credibility since they awarded one to little Jimmy Carter.”

My sentiments exactly - what a shame for what was once the preeminent award ever given.

[LiteKeeper]

Eleven Lies

[Old Professer]

But hers was a deliberate, if fanciful, falsehood; Gore believes his statements to be gospel.

[Old Professer]

You don’t find an odd parallel with all the trumpeting of global warming and the increased migration to more industrialized areas by those people now suffering destruction and near-starvation caused by wars and droughts trying to survive and perhaps raise their own standard of living?

As the word spreads, more will come.

[Dustbunny]

Scary!!!

[RightWhale]

• his stated desire is to stop human activity that he sees as ruining what he calls the "ecosystem."

  Malthus lives!

[prophetic]

Well as W.C. Fields once said There's a sucker born every minute! and this again unfortunately proves him right.

So lets see here for a moment about the oh so glorious Nobel Prize and what that vaunted institution has become:
1. The Godfather of Worldwide Terrorism Yassar Arafat got a Peace Prize for pretending to want peace but used this as bookend on his shelf and went on to kill another 20,000 innocent Jews.
2. Jimmy Carter who was partner with that terrorist has now plainly shown just how Anti-American & Anti-Semitic he really is from his ongoing actions.
3. The United Nations Kofi Annan who presided over a absolutely corrupt and impotent organization while allowing A) dictators pillaged the humanitarian relief funds B) Oil-For-Food scandals C) Rwanda Genocide D) Drug trafficking, Sex Slavery, Racketeering, Netopism by UN personnel
4. International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei for playing footsie with Iran, N Korea and other nuclear aspiring states, giving them more than enough time to develop nuclear weapons while slapping them on the wrist with meaningless actions.

Yeah, Alfred Nobel must really be spinning in his grave for all his foundation has degenerated to crap. Heck maybe I'll find my Nobel Prize in my next box of morning breakfast cereal.

Well Al Gore I'll say this much to you: "You may fool most of the people some of the time....."

[subterfuge]

Al G. might deserve a Nobel Piece of Cake Prize...maybe.

[r9etb]

Using that torured logic, it would also make sense to award it to the next "embracer" of selective euthenasia of undesireables, as it would certainly be a benefit for the remaining "humanity", in the nobel sense, exclusively, of course.

As I said before, I think it's idiotic for Al Gore to have won the prize.

That said, I'm sure you'll agree that the committee gets to decide who wins. And even though I think they're silly gits, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to wondering whether they take their deliberations seriously: I think they do.

My point is that the premise of this article makes sense only if the committee agrees with the author, but chose Al Gore anyway. The author's point collapses if they don't agree with him .... and they don't.

I'm not a fan of bad punditry based on bad reasoning -- it does more harm than good. I'll point it out when I see it.

[subterfuge]

Al G. might deserve a Nobel Piece of Cake Prize...maybe.

[r9etb]

I’m not sure I understand your comment.... In fact, I’m sure I don’t. Can you restate?