Truth is definitely stranger than fiction, with Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sharing this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

In recent years, the Nobel Committee has shown itself more and more willing to name the Peace prize for political reasons. In awarding Al Gore and the IPCC the Peace Prize, however, the Nobel Committee has lost all pretense to objectivity. Not only are Al Gore and the IPCC shamelessly partisan choices, but also irrelevant ones. Whatever one thinks of their crusade to convince the world of catastrophic, human caused global warming, it has precious little to do with furthering world peace.

Gore seems to have anticipated the criticism. In his first statement, he explains: “The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.” Methinks this issue has much to do with ideology, and little to do with science.

[Ed. note: Hear Jay Richards discuss Gore's peace prize on the G. Gordon Liddy show here.]


  • http://the-vigil.blogspot.com/ Vigilante

    Reading through your last two posts makes me feel a little sad. On the subjects of global warming and democracy in the Middle East if fear you are up the river de Nile w/out a paddle. (If you forgive me for having said so…)

  • http://gimps.de Amanda Short

    Yes I agree, giving money to already rich people is not very reasonable, but still logical if you consider that this people have to be successful and prosper in some sort of industry or sector of society.

    yours Sincerely.

  • http://underthenews.blogspot.com Ron Franscell

    I give Al Gore credit for bringing a looming environmental catastrophe to the public’s attention. For a nation populated by lazy, fat, celebrity-obsessed wasters of time, energy and air, it took a familiar face to raise the issue to cocktail conversation. Despite his political petulance and past imprecisions (“I invented the Internet”), I applaud Gore’s leadership on this globally crucial issue.

    But the Nobel Peace Prize? Pffft.

    While he deserves applause for bringing global warming somewhere nearer the forefront of our American conversation (global warming still doesn’t get as much discussion as Britney Spears), Gore’s a documented hypocrite. He talks the talk, but doesn’t quite walk the walk. A carnivorous, global-jetting, mansion-heating guy isn’t exactly practicing what he preaches.

    I won’t waste any more of your bandwidth. I blogged about Gore’s Nobel more fully at Under The News

  • J Ward

    Those who question Gore’s sincerity or accuracy can remember when in the 1970’s the fear was the coming Ice Age with the fear that the Great Lakes would be frozen over and glaciers would swoop down from Canada.

    The other problem is that he tells us we must change our life style but persists in his wasteful style. Ed Begley Jr has 10 times the credibility of Gore.

  • Cliff Washington

    I agree with ya Dr. Richards yet it makes the same level of sense as Acton posting a Obama’s Pastor’s story on your website then the link takes you to a FOX NEWS page!:-( I thought that was also “a shamelessly partisan choice of story and also irrelevant” as to the focus of the Acton Institute.
    I pray that Kris and Robert does not let the ACTON sink to a Shawn Hannity level of direction!

  • http://blog.acton.org/ Jordan

    Obviously you are free to have your own opinions about the objectivity and quality of Fox News, but the reason it is linked is because an Acton research fellow, Anthony Bradley, is quoted in the article. Whether or not Obama’s use of religious rhetoric, as part of a larger pattern on the political left, is germane to the institute’s focus is also perhaps debatable, but it’s at least related if not central, I would think.