Så faldt Nobel også i kampen mod populisme og er gået i sort

Så skete der noget som ikke kunne gå min næse forbi uden, at få en kommentar med på vejen. I dag (den 12. oktober), har den tidligere amerikanske vice præsident fået nobelsFREDSpris for, hans dokumentar film "An unconvinient truth" med følgende begrundelse:

"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Hvorledes hjælper Al Gore's film os mod en mere fredelig verden?

De seneste 15 års vindere, tæller personligheder som Nelson Mandela, Yitzak Rabin og mange andre som alle har det tilfælles, at de har kæmpet mod en reel farlig ting (såsom landminer og arbejde mod atomare våben) eller har ydet en ekstraordinær indsats for, at løse en konkret konflikt (såsom Israel-Palæstina, afskaffelse af Apartheid og retfærdighed for østtimonesere). Hvorledes man kan få Al Gore til at passe ind i den kategori, er for mig svært forståelig og jeg måtte ty til at læse den officielle begrundelse for denne hæder til denne mand. Begrundelsen er som følger:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.
Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.
Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.
By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.
Oslo, 12 October 2007

Den afgørende forskel mellem Al Gore og de andre er, for mig at se, at Al Gore får den for at sætte fokus på et problem der POTENTIELT kan skabe et sikkerhedsproblem, men globalopvarmning er ikke et sikkerhedsproblem på nuværende tidspunkt.

For mig virker det som et knæfald og endnu et propaganda signal fra det politisk korrekte miljø, for man kan jo ligeså godt vende debatten om og påstå (med rette), at kravet om mere vedvarende energi etc. netop øger uligheden på verdens basis, da afrikanere og andre udviklingslande nu har ringere mulighed for, at gennemgå industrialisering, for ikke at sige ingen mulighed. Øget ulighed ulighed den vej igennem er potentielt ligeså farligt for verdensfreden, så hvad får han den for? Så kunne man også have givet nobels fredspris til de mennesker der opstillede dommedagsteorier i forbindelse med nytåret (hvor computere ville gå ned og vi ville blive angrebet af dræberbier), de satte jo også fokus på et potentielt problem som (hvis det var sket) kunne skabe et stort pres på sikkerhedssituationen via migration.