A very long but informative article from Rolling Stone.

So you may have heard, Al Gore has shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. My first reaction is the title of this post. I’m staggered that the comittee couldn’t find someone more befitting of the intention of the award.

Firstly, let me lay my cards on the table. I believe that:

* Climate change is real (because scientists tell me it is and they know more about it than me).

* Climate change is at least partially to blame on humans (because scientists tell me it is and they know more about it than me).

* The effects of climate change and the impact that it will have on the world is only theoretical. As a consequence, scientists can only guess as to what the impact will be, and how long until it happens. The Earth is a complex ecosystem that is incredibly difficult to model. You can’t know for certain what the temperature will be in a weeks time so I struggle to believe that anyone could possibly predict with any confidence what the sea levels, mean temperature or any other observable climatic measure will be in the future (they’re still working on what the temperature is going to be one week from now). You’ll note that next to the two prior points I’ve said that basically because its the job of climate scientists to study it then if they can all (or mostly) agree on a fact then that’s good enough for me. I am yet to see any agreement on specific effects of climate change apart from very hand-wavy, vague and obvious notions.

Now that that’s out of the way, let’s look at what the charter of the prize entails.

“to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.

Gore’s shared award was for his

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.

This probably not a good week for a UK High Court judge to find that “nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus”. One of the claims was found to be “distinctly alarmist”. Overall, the judge’s comments are unlikely to matter. Gore ’sold’ climate change to the world and he did it well.

The press release goes on to say

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.

Count the instances of the word ‘may’ in the above quote. Nobody knows what is going to happen due to climate change. It may all be a fizzer even if we do nothing. As I’ve said, scientists can’t agree on the magnitude of the impact and how that impact will affect the Earth in 100 years time.

The Peace Prize is notable amongst the Nobel prizes because it is often awarded to people soon after their achievement. Scientific Nobel prizes (e.g. Physics, Chemistry) are awarded many years after the initial work (Einstein waited 16 years). I don’t have a problem with this lack of delay. However, when we don’t know if climate change will produce wars of attrition, I would suggest we wait for the science to settle. Once again, let me be clear: I’m not disputing the existence of climate change or its cause, but rather the unknown amplitude of its impact and the way in which people like Gore extrapolate the worst possible scenarios and then tweak them a little bit more. Gore may have achieved in the past few years a great advancement for humankind and averted many wars and saved millions of lives, but it’s way too early to make that call.

So what are we left with? All I can see is that the committee wanted to make a political statement. Something along the lines of “hey, climate change is important”. Sure it is (and thanks for getting on the bandwagon), but it’s not the most important problem facing humanity. At this point I’ve put in a video of a TED talk from Bjorn Lomborg. In it he uses an economic value model to assess what exactly are the most important problems to solve. Here’s a spoiler: if every country signed Kyoto it would reduce the effect of climate change in such a way that instead of someone in Bangladesh getting flooded in 2100 they would get flooded in 2106. It would also cost $150 billion. But hey, climate change is sexy and HIV/AIDS isn’t.

I’m fully aware that I can’t just whinge about it and not put forward an alternative, so if not Gore, then whom? According to one betting guide some of the other favourites included Irene Sendler and Martti Ahtisaari. Sendler is estimated to have saved 2,500 Jewish children during the Holocaust. Ahtisaari has had a distinguished diplomatic career and recently negotiated a peace treaty in the Indonesian territory of Aceh. Both seem good to me.

Dear Media,

I know that it’s really difficult for you to move on once you have a brand. When an unidentified child is identified, please use her real name - even if you have to practise saying it. Oh no newsreaders, some actual work to do! If you can work out how to say Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono you do the same for her. Seriously though, use her name, there’s not need to keep going with this Pumpkin crap. If you actually start using her real name people will eventually work out what you’re talking about, we’re not dumb.

Thanks.

An update:
It would appear that Mediawatch agree with me.

McDonald’s wants to change the Oxford dictionary definition of ‘McJob’.

In 2001, the term finally entered the Oxford English Dictionary, which defined it as “an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, especially one created by the expansion of the service sector.” And it has remained there ever since. But not for much longer if McDonald’s gets its way.

The company is leading a “word battle” on behalf of the wider service sector. The object, according to David Fairhurst, a senior vice-president of McDonald’s, is to change the definition of McJob to “reflect a job that is stimulating, rewarding … and offers skills that last a lifetime.”

Full article

I really hope they don’t get their way. Corporations shouldn’t dictate what words (and accompanying meanings) should and should not enter our vocabulary. McDonald’s chances don’t appear to be too good. The article goes on to note that Oxford refused to change the word ‘couch potato’ to ‘couch slouch’ in response to the potato lobby (yes, it exists) that claimed the definition was driving down its business.

Scientists from the Clemson University in the US have gone some way to prove the validity of the five second rule (the rule whereby, if you drop some food, you have five seconds to pick it up before it’s considered too contaminated to eat).

Slices of bologna and bread left for five seconds took up between 150 to 8,000 bacteria from surfaces that had been contaminated eight hours earlier. However, left for a full minute, the food slices collected about 10 times more bacteria from the tile and carpet, and a lower number from the wood surface.

Granted, dropping your food in salmonella is generally speaking a pretty dumb thing to do, but dropping food onto a relatively clean surface and picking it up quickly is far better than leaving it for a while.

Full article

Possibly the best case of sibling rivalry ever.

VILLAGERS at a wedding in India decided the groom arrived too drunk to get married, so the bride married the groom’s more sober brother instead.

Full article

Not only is the premise hilarious but the fact that they refer to the brother as just ‘more sober’ as opposed to ‘not drunk’ has me in stitches.

Miners have discovered a substance with the exact chemical composition as Kryptonite as described in Superman Returns.
Unfortunately…

The real mineral is white and harmless, says Dr Chris Stanley, a mineralogist at London’s Natural History Museum.

“I’m afraid it’s not green and it doesn’t glow either - although it will react to ultraviolet light by fluorescing a pinkish-orange,” he told BBC News.

Full article

So disappointing!