Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 12 October 2007 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2007.164
News
Climate change - a Nobel cause
Peace prize awarded to climate scientists and politician filmstar.
“We had absolutely no clue, it’s fantastic,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate modeller at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. On 8 - 10 October, Rahmstorf, along with more than a dozen Nobel laureates and many others, was at a symposium in Potsdam discussing climate change and related problems under the rubric “Global sustainability: a Nobel cause”.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Am I the only one being skeptical about this Nobel award? The recognition of Al Gore as a "messenger" for the climate issue is worthwhile, but a Nobel prize? Scientifically spoken, there are still many answers t be given on the whole climate thing. e.g. Are the measures that have been proposed at Kyoto sufficient? Will these contribute substantially? In other words, should we focus on a true cure or on measures allowing us to cope with the inevitable consequence of human economical activity on this planet? I believe the Nobel committee has taken a populistic decision, rather than a critical one... apart from having taken it too early.
Major scientific points in the movie have been shown to be exaggerated or unproven. Global warming models are based off programs that are inaccurate at predicting weather 7 days from now. Scientist need to stop suffering from the worst case of group think since the Iraq war and begin asking questions.
I am sorry, but I cannot undestand what Al Gore made for the PEACE?? He can get as many awards for his environmental movement and actions, but PEACE?? What he has done to stop violence, war in the World?? Has he been trying to stop guerrillas in South America, or has he been part of the dialogs in the Middle East? Is he involved in any conflict trying to stop it?? So, why he got this NOBEL... sorry, can someone explain it to me??
What can happen to our planet is more important than all the political discussions on the Middle East,etc...If the attribution of the Nobel Prize can help to persuade our leaders to take the necessary decisions in order to avoid a nightmare, so much the better. Georges N. Cohen Paris,France
I believe if humankind is in front of a real possibility to modify the earth climate in such catastrophic way we must think in the generations to come, NOT IN OURSELVES. What the deterrants will say if it is true the risks? , I´m so sorry ??. To millions of desperate humans... and what about those millions of animal species who are extinted?. Gore was right ..... is a moral and ethical issue!!
For those interested in the connection between climate change and peace, please see the article in Nature Reports - Climate Change by Amanda Leigh Haag, "Is this what the world's coming to?" She cites a study entitled "Climate Change-induced Migration and Violent Conflict," by Rafael Reuveny of Indiana University. He found that, of 38 cases of migration directly attributable to climate change during the twentieth century, half led to conflict, some of which were violent.
I think a third recipient of the Nobel Prize should at least have been mentioned -- namely, God. At least 90% of climate change is due to astronomical variations such as the ellipticity of the earth's orbit around the sun, etc. The next great weather event will surely be a great Ice Age like the past four we have had every 100,000 years for the past 500,000 years. With most of upstate New York, as well of other northern states, under thousands of feet of ice, it will make us question our sanity as well the competency of our climatologists and politicians who propose we should spend tens of billions of dollars trying to stave off a one degree rise in temperature. Oh, that would feel so good now!
I suggest you leave the gentleman's picture out of the story, in order to make it less repugnant
I am disappointed that an organization that I have long respected has made such a choice as to include Al Gore for this award. Considering the achievements and work that other laureates have accomplished it is hard to see Al Gore in the same light. Furthermore considering the man's problems with both academic and personal integrity I feel that the Nobel committee has been remiss in the area of due diligence. Gore has advocated and used exageration and intimidation techniques to suppress true scholarly dialogue prefering instead to use a "political approach" to furthering his cause. He frequently misquotes the work of respected scientists and cherry picks which studies he feels will support his cause while pooh poohing the "so called skeptics," as he refers to scientists or studies which are opposed to his claims. He further refers to consensus statements as if they were a proven position of fact or law of nature. What he fails to inform his listeners however, is that a consensus statement is an OPINION that is rendered by people working in the field when information is incomplete or a process is not fully understood. If he is truly interested in educating the public he should spend some time elaborating this point and exercise some degree of honesty about the completeness of both the data and the conclusions which are derived from it. There is no question that climate change, global or regional can have far reaching consequences for human populations, but the inclusion of Al Gore for this year's Nobel Peace Prize only serves to detract from the fine individuals who have done the real work in the field.
<<"I am sorry, but I cannot undestand what Al Gore made for the PEACE??">> Answer: when populations run out of fresh drinking water, can't irrigate crops, and coastal high water casuses evacuations, you have the ingredients for war. For those who insist it is a natural cycle, take a look at the Oct. 07 N Geographic insert titled "Changing Climate". There have been four spikes in CO2 concentrations in the past 400,000 years and they were assoc. with warmer temps. And yes, during that time the Earth changed the shape of its solar orbit over 100,000 yr cycles; its axis tilt changed during 41,000 yr cycles; and its precision (wobble) changed ~ every 20,000 yrs. BUT... during those cycles atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been as high as 380 ppm, today's level, and NEVER in those 400,000 yrs has the CO2 increased so fast and so high, far ahead of temperature rise, and all since the industrial revolution. Once you see this graph, you will re-think the cyclic argument.
What amazes me is the fact that - after thousands of peer reviewed studies - there is still so much apparent doubt about man made effects of global warming. There are just too many of us, who don't want to change their life style at any cost. Of course, we can’t predict the weather for more than some days or sometimes even hours, but we can predict climate. We know that it is colder in the winter than in the summer, we know that CO2 traps heat, and we know that we produce CO2 at an unprecedented level of human history. The problem is not even the fact that that the earth is warming, if it were very gradual we could probably adapt to it. But the fast and accelerating rate of warming is what will lead to catastrophic effects on our planet, nature and human society, unless we act now. It is high-noon. The Nobel prize to both Gore and the IPCC is well deserved and timely.
In reply to Andrea, climate change is currently the biggest threat to global peace. No matter how big the army is on your borders, they won't invade if they are happy. Once conditions deteriorate and the "grass looks greener on the other side", they will move. The threat is less immediate but the results far more devastating than anything happening in South America or the Middle East.
This Nobel Prize is an important one, since it draws the attention of a big crowd to an eminent problem that we and more importantly future generations are facing: Global warming, shortage of resources, population growth. As pointed out by some attentive readers, these problems will have a huge impact on politics, and thus peace. The Nobel Committee has chosen Al Gore, who might be a celebrity , however, only this way will the big crowd react and maybe become aware of what is going on with our living habitat and also that we must change our way of living. Moreover, this Nobel Prize focuses on upcoming problems, which is a new way of attributing this prize, but at the same time an important decision, since only this way can we still change something. Finally, all of those still arguing that global warming is not happening and that Gore, the IPCC and others are exaggerating, are merely sticking their heads into the sand, meaning they are not willing to change their lifestyles.
Why are all the "greens" suddenly so agitated about the retreat of the polar ice cap? They have always known that the polar ice cap has been in retreat since the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, when its edge was at New York City. I actually prefer our current glacier-free New York climate. Before the current ice age, the ice-free earth supported life quite comfortably. Just how far do they want us to turn back the clock? It looks like the primary problem is that so many people have a pathological compulsion to tell others what to do. Rather than calling their party the "green" party, it might be more accurate to call it the "watermelon" party: green on the outside and red on the inside.
The debate about whether or not human activity is resposible for global warming is irelevant. Humans have already caused air, soil, and water pollution, species extinctions,depletion of rain forests, and holes in the ozone. If the fear of planet Earth melting like a piece of wax is the only thing motivates people to get their (our) heads out of the sand and to change their(our)destructive,short-sighted,selfish habits, then I say Bravo! Al Gore! Since we are all completely dependent upon this planet to survive, it is incumbent upon us as a species to ensure the continued habitability of said planet. Those who are most opposed to the idea that humans are responsible for climate change are terrified of having to change their lifestyle and pay attention to the consequences of consumerism.
Thank you,Al. The question is whether you would be where you stand now had you beaten Bush in the 2000 US presidential race. Dare you say the same thing to the American people? Ha ha......
Al Gore is not a pacifist but a warrior. He approved depleted uranium bombing over South Iraq during the Gulf War, which caused the dead of hundreds of thousands of civilians (including many children). I do think that he is doing well his political campaign using the global warming warning against republicans and planetary degradation as a political flag but he has double ethical principles that do not fit with a Nobel Price expected profile.
I could comment on many arguments of previous commenter’s. Peace can only be maintained when the necessities of life are (reasonably) readily available. Being a politician means making tuff decisions for the entire nation, sometimes that doesn’t go well with one’s personal believes. Many former recipients weren’t that ethical either; something pops to mind, to do with the discovery of the structure of DNA… Science isn’t black or white, it’s grey. The answer we’re looking for is a simple yes or no, we’ll never get that through science, only a grayish yes or no. I could comment, but none of the above arguments will hold or matter, when you stop to think and ask just one thing: Do I really want to risk being wrong?