If there were any doubts about the irrelevance of the Nobel Peace Prize, the win by Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should put them to rest. In its press release announcing the award, the only reference to "peace" is that "There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states" because of possible environmental pressures brought about by possible climate change.

To make this award, the Nobel Committee had to:

1. Embrace the theory that the climate is changing for the worse. This has not been proved, but the climate is always changing, so it's reasonable to assume that at this point, the changes may be detrimental to at least some populations.
2. Embrace the theory that human activity is driving the change, at least in part. This really has not been proved. If anything, the actual bona fide science involved in climatological study shows that the climate has changed many times over the millennia without any human intervention. Our industrial society is barely a blip in geological terms.
3. Determine that climate changes will likely cause conflict. This is possible, but it's more likely that conflict and war will happen for other reasons. The cause of war is the desire to war. Any other explanations can be easily dismissed. The aggressor never had to start the conflict.
4. Decide that Al Gore is working to achieve peace and foster tranquility by his efforts. Despite the unlikeliness of (2) above, this is the real stretch of the imagination. Al Gore is using pseudoscience and outright fabrications to cause unrest. He is fostering animosity between industrial nations and developing nations. He is trying to make some of us feel guilty just for having a high standard of living. This is trying to bring peace?
5. Decide that Al Gore's efforts are succeeding in bringing peace. Given that (4) is such a joke, what can be said about this one? Gore's crusade is a complete joke. The only people finding "peace" from it are the empty-headed ones who make themselves feel better by buying "carbon offsets" to counterbalance their own consumption.

Even if we were to give up all critical thinking and grant that all the above points are actually true, the Nobel Committee is really suspending all sense in making the award these days. It used to be given to people like Aung San Suu Kyi, who could not go receive the prize because she was under house arrest for her pro-democracy efforts in Burma. Now, it's being given to guys like Jimmy Carter, whose ineffectual dealings with Iran led to a good deal of the current mess in the Middle East. This time, it's even worse. Instead of recognizing someone whose work has actually achieved some level of peace or justice, the Nobel Committee has instead awarded it to a man who, in their view is doing work that may reduce possible future conflict arising from possible environmental disasters that may arise from potential climate change that some people think might be caused by human activity. I give an appropriate response by adding a little methane to the atmosphere in their general direction.