I find it interesting that someone could win a Nobel Peace prize for advocating the theory of global warming. This boggled my mind until I heard someone this weekend say that he won the peace prize for this work in the War on Global Warming. Oh, really? Hey, let’s launch a nuke at it. That’ll show ol’ global warming.
But seriously… a peace prize? And for what? It’s not like he’s the lead researching on the topic. It’s not like he’s the one who made the world aware of the theory. He’s just a stupid politician who advocated throwing money at the problem. And this wins him the nobel peace prize? I mean, I guess they couldn’t give him the prize for physics, since he didn’t really do anything scientific. Chemistry? No. Medicine or literature? No. Hey, why not economics? I mean, that’s really what this is all about, right? Yes, give him the nobel prize for economics.
So I think I’ve lost my belief in the objectiveness of the Nobel committee. How else could they have possibly come to this conclusion unless they started out by saying, who do we want to give a prize to, and how can we justify it?