Replies

Jeff Jacoby had a great explanation as to why the Nobel “Peace” Prize has become such a joke as of late. Unlike all of the other Nobel Laureates,who are selected by a panel of Swedish scientists and scholars, the Peace prize recipient is selected by Norwegian politicians usually with an axe to grind.

Jacoby of the Boston Globe:

“In all seriousness, it is worth nothing an important difference between the “peace” prize and the other Nobel prizes. The Swedish scholars and scientists who make up the committees that award the science, literature, and economics prizes routinely choose honorees whose greatest work was done years, even decades, earlier.

For instance, Max Planck’s revolutionary paper on quantum theory was published in 1900; he received the Nobel Prize for it in 1918. Albert Einstein’s discovery of the photoelectric effect — a 1905 achivement — earned him the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921. James Watson and Francis Crick figured out the structure of DNA in 1953; they didn’t receive the Nobel Prize in medicine (with Maurice Williams) until 1962. The 1924 Nobel in medicine went to Willem Einthoven for discovering the mechanism of the electrocardiogram. He had done the work between 1895 and 1905.

This is why recipients of the Swedish Nobels are so often very old. Doris Lessing, this year’s literature laureate, is 88. Two years ago, Thomas Schelling — then 84 — was a co-recipient of the economics prize for work he had done in 1960. As a rule, a scientist, author, or economist receives a Nobel Prize only after his work has been sifted and weighed and put to the test of time. Its importance has been established, often through years of peer review. As a result, the science, literature, and economics Nobels rarely end up looking foolish or naive.

By contrast, the Norwegian committee entrusted with awarding the peace prize comprises politicians, not scholars. Like politicians everywhere, the peace prize committee tends to be more interested in what the headlines will say today than in what historians will believe 20 — or 100 — years from now. And unlike their Swedish counterparts, the Norwegians often intend their choice to have a political impact. When they gave the prize to Jimmy Carter in 2002, the committee chairman emphasized that it was intended to be “a kick in the leg” of the Bush administration. This year’s prize to Al Gore speaks for itself.

In short, the five Swedish Nobels are almost always rewards for true achievement. The one Norwegian Nobel too often smacks of an agenda. Maybe the peace laureates would be less risible if they were chosen in Stockholm too.”

I’ve never heard of this guy nor have I ever known that there was a general reluctance after being questioned on this point, by the very researchers on whose reports so much of this argument rests in the recent past.

But I have often made the same comment when the subject of the historical data came up

Why can’t we take core samples now and compare the 20+ years of data we would get to what is the foundation for the theory itself and the political and economic responses we’re being rushed to undertake.

Not just bristlecones but ice cores themselves.

The Arctic sea stands apart since we were just informed that the extent of breakup is greatly influenced by local surface winds which is a component of weather, not climate.

Unfortunately, the issue is settled while the supporting science is coming under greater and more focused attack only to be met by a brick wall of dismissal.