A stony-faced Al Gore reflects on his failure to win a Nobel Prize for Science.

In a stunning turn of events, the Nobel Committee failed to award a Nobel Prize for Science to Al Gore, instead opting to present him with the Peace Prize despite the scant evidence that his recent climate change-related activities have contributed anything to the advancement of global peace.

The award can be seen as something of a consolation prize for Gore, however, as in recent days even the British judicial system has ruled that “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore’s global warming documentary, is full of “alarmism and exaggeration.”

Gore joins other non-luminaries of the global peace pantheon who have also won the award, including Kofi Anan and the United Nations and Yasser Arafat.

More: Czech President Vaclav Claus:

“The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct,” the statement said. “It rather seems that Gore’s doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace.”

  • Dan VandeBunte

    Did you ever notice that when everyone has a coat on outside it’s cold? And that when everyone is outside without a coat it’s warm? I bet people not wearing coats outside is what’s causing Global Warming. All we need to do to stop it is have everyone put a coat on.

    Simple enough.

    Where’s *my* Peace Prize? Or do I have to turn my theory into a movie first?

  • Marc Vander Maas


    I know there’s no Nobel Prize for science. That’s why I said that Gore was not awarded the Nobel Prize for Science. I said he was not awarded a Nobel Prize for science. There’s a difference between the definite and indefinite article in the English language. FYI.

    Additionally: There is a difference between “science” (The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena) and “consensus” (General agreement or accord). One does not equal the other. It is probably true that a great number of scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming; based on my reading on the issue, I’m inclined to agree with that hypothesis as well. The disagreement is on whether or not the warming is likely to be as catastrophic as Gore has claimed. There’s plenty of disagreement on that, and I’d venture to guess that there’s a range of opinion on that particular part of the issue represented in all of the organizations you listed. (I’d also note that it was reported a while back that even some scientists who generally agree with Gore’s take on the issue believed that he had exaggerated the problem a bit too much for their tastes in his film.)

    So anyway, thanks for your comment, even if you were a bit boorish.

  • Steve

    You’re a moron. There is no such thing as “Nobel prize for Science”. The Nobel prizes are the following: Physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace.

    In order to be awarded the Nobel prize for physics, chemistry, or physiology/medicine, you must have contributed something to that. Outstanding research, some sort of discovery, etc. Al Gore never contributed anything to climate science nor has he claimed to have done so, Al Gore simply presented climate science, the scientific consensus on Global warming. He raised awareness of Global warming, something the scientists were having a problem doing. Nonetheless, the award was also given to the IPCC. I suggest you look at the scientific consensus, it’s not Al Gore that’s saying global warming is real, it’s the scientists. He’s simply echoing their research.

    And it’s not “fringe” scientists either, it’s the large majority of them. The following organizations have stated that global warming is largely caused by human activity:

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    Joint science academies
    U.S. National Research Council
    American Meteorological Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Institute of Physics
    American Astronomical Society
    Federal Climate Change Science Program
    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
    Geological Society of America
    American Chemical Society
    Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

  • Paul Prezzia

    Was Gore even being considered for a “Science” Nobel in the first place? If not, why do you say the Peace award was a “consolation?” I was under a similar impression to Steve’s that you had to be an actual researcher to even be considered for Physics, Chemistry, or Medicine. It was a boorish comment though.

  • Marc Vander Maas

    Just being jocular, fellas – trying to point out in a somewhat humorous fashion that Gore’s grasp of the science of the issue may not be as magisterial as advertised.

  • Juan Millaruelo

    I’m afraid your levity came out wrong. You are undisputably free to disagree with Mr. Albert Gore, but your attempt to ridicule him fizzled. We do not ask for your scientific credentials. Why do you ask for Al Gore’s? Al Gore is not a scientist. He IS a remarkably effective public spokesman for an opinion held by the majority consensus that has coalesced within the scientific community after many years of heavy uphill work against accepted thinking. It will evolve and shift, but it DOES represents current mainstream scientific thinking. Gore IS guilty of overstating some specific points -such as speed of expected flooding of coastal areas -which are not part of the current paradigm.

  • Marc Vander Maas

    There’s no point in asking for Gore’s scientific credentials, as he has none. He graduated from Harvard with a degree in Government, spent some time in the army, a bit of time working for a local newspaper, and has spent virtually the rest of his life in DC level or international politics.

    He’s been able to parlay the fame he acquired through politics into a new role as spokesman for the alarmist wing of the climate change debate and international environmental superstar. That’s the extent of his credentials. And it’s on that basis that we’re asked to believe his predictions of doom and accept his proposals to solve the problem (which in and of themselves probably spell economic doom anyway).

    Never mind that there are plenty of people much more qualified than he is who disagree sharply with his assessment of the impact of global warming. We’re simply to accept that there is a “consensus” on the issue and that to disagree with said “consensus” amounts to anti-science treason. Except that – as I noted in an earlier comment – consensus and science are not interchangeable concepts. And in case you didn’t click on it before, I’ll direct you again to this link, where the weakness of Gore’s claims of “consensus” is exposed.

    I don’t deny that on average, the globe is warming, and it’s certainly possible, even likely, that human activity contributes to the warming to some degree. I simply don’t think that a balanced view of the evidence shows that we’re inexorably racing to our collective doom without massively disrupting changes in our economy, which is pretty much Gore’s point. You even admit in your defense of Gore that he is guilty of exaggeration; But if his entire argument depends on those exaggerations, shouldn’t that be of concern to us?

  • Dan VandeBunte

    Sadly, simply pointing out that Mr. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, has written an article debunking global warming isn’t enough. IT’S MIT!!!!

    Coincidentally, last week’s football game between MIT and UCLA was cancelled because MITUCLA is a dirty word in arundi-barundi.

    [That's an obscure reference to an old Canadian TV show that used air on Nickelodeon, "You Can't Do That on Television". Alanis Morrisette used to be on it.]