By any other phrase: a Noble Fleece!

j.zimmermann, napa, ca

Global warming is the perfect leftist scheme: guilt combined with a new tax scheme. Global warming may exist, but what is the solution? Any tax on fuels will be met with political resistance. Gore, in his personal life, is a huge polluter. His preaching global warming is like someone demanding world chastity from the door of his personal brothel. One wonders how this Nobel Award will appear in 50 or 100 years. Only time will tell.

Tony Franics, Wichita, KS/USA

I'm annoyed - not by Gore getting the Prize, but by some of the comments here and elsewhere. As a scientist (in a different field) I know that any long book or film is bound to have errors in it. Nine errors is not much for a work as Gore's. Some points were consensus at the time of filming and were reviewed later on. Others are insignificant or just illustrative anecdotes (e.g. the polar bears). Justice Barton has acknowledged that nearly all of the science in the film is accurate, and it can still be shown in schools. If this is the worst that Gore's detractors can find, he's fine.

It's been pointed out that the Prize is awarded for promoting "fraternity among nations". It's the baseless criticism and denial that destroys it, not Gores campaign. Also, he was awarded for raising the awareness (which he certainly does), not for providing perfect solutions. That, he does not - but he doesn't have to to deserve an award. How about others helping him rather than trying to put him down?

Holger, Wolfsburg, Germany

It is very sad thatthe Noble Prize that has just been awarded to Al Gore has afforded it the same stutus as an Oscar. Al Gore is only using the global warming arguement as a method of self-publicity. Well done, because he seems to have achieved it and managed to get many people worried on false information, as your article says.

Global warming is certainly a fact of life, but the Earth has cooled and heated all through it's life. We are surely not helping the situation with carbon emmisions but the reality is that the status quo for the Earth cannot be maintained. The reason being that there is none as it is constantly changing. Surely then the message is that we should adapt and find ways to live within the planet's changes.

Marion George, Antibes, France

Mr. Clark correctly points out that the thesis of the Nobel Committee's action in giving the Peace Prize to Mr. Gore - namely that "Cut greenhouse emissions, in other words, and climate change will be averted and peace will be preserved" - is flawed.

There is, however, a more obvious flaw in that reasoning than Mr. Clark points out. If the current climate (or even the climate of 100 years ago) is so amenable to promoting peace, why aren't we currently living in a state of world harmony? If there is some climate/peace link (highly questionable) then the only thing that we should expect from maintaining the climate in its current state is that we'd maintain the level of peace in it's current state.

Maybe they should give Mr. Gore the Anti-Peace Prize?

David, Charleston, S.C. / USA

What is the end prize for Gore, IPCC and the Scienti?ts who trot their lies out to the gullible public? What are they really trying to achieve?

I have several questions and of course, none of them will be given a coherent answer. So I will assume these people and their ilk also think evolution created a well balanced environment and manklind is screwing it up.

If all the Polar Bears drown that means more fish for bigger fish, more seals for killer whales and more whales for fishermen, etc. Survival of the fittest?

I don't believe mankind will accept digressing to the "Horse and Buggy Days" in order to appease the "Global Warming" crowd. Nature will, of course, take her natural course whether mankind is on the earth or not.

Whilst we're here we will continue to seek ways to advance mankind with "Science" which improves our lives rather than halt worldwide industry because ice is melting in the Artic.

"Whatever evolves was first, created" - Jason Leverette, Patriot

FromTheTop, Mobile, USA

To claim that "a significant minority of climate scientists do not accept the theory of global warning" depends, I suppose, on what you mean by the "theory of global warning" or if "a significant minority" means "one or two". However it is certain that the IPCC report, which asserts unequivocally the existence of global warming caused by human activity, is now accepted by every respected climate scientist. Ross Clark is simply wrong on this point.

Tony Key, Toronto, Canada

Julie Packard's efforts with The Monterey Bay Aquarium's "Fishing for Solutions" Campaign in 1997, really deserved the Noble Prize, instead the campaign was shelved in favor of a less threatening political agenda follow-up campaign, as the national constituency favored fiction to reality. The campaign emphasized poignantly the immediacy of legislation to curb world wide fishing practices that endangered wetlands, myriad marine life habitats, fish species, etc., with a limited window of opportunity to forestall such disasters. The Institute gave the public what they wanted.

My concern, as evidenced by continued failure on the part of the US Congress to respond to the genuine needs of global warming, endangered wildlife, marine life, coastal wetlands, rainforests, etc. is the message presented by Stanford University in conjunction with the '97 "Fishing for Solutions" campaign, a minimal window of opportunity to reverse such practices. Apparently the window has closed politically, real

Neal Hightower, Decaturville, Tenn

the aim of giving the prize to arafat was to mobilize him to the peace process. in other words there is allways political motive by giving the prize

nir eyal, rehovot, israel

Readers should cast a glance at this article, which is available to non-subscribers :

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/10/al-gores-inconvenient-truth.html

Chris, chesterfield, UK

Just a few years ago New Scientist made the comment, when the first of two Larsen ice shelves broke off Antarctica, "If the other Larsen ice shelf disappears inside the next 35 years we should be worried". That second ice shelf disappeared the following spring. This year, the Arctic lost 1 million square km of OLD, permanent ice and yesterday, the BBC transmitted a short primer report from their correspondent on a ship in clear water inside the North West Passage, a good three weeks past the date when, historically, the ice returned for the winter. This is the first year the North West Passage has been declared open to normal shipping by the Canadians, trustees of the ice reporting stations who have declared temperatures of more than 22 degrees for days on end during the summer. Greenland is covered by ice two miles thick with melt water all over the surface during the summer that just might trigger the collapse like the second Larsen Ice Shelf and add up to 20ft of water world wide.

Chris Coles, Medstead, Alton, United Kingdom

I've considered the award an insult rather than a tribute ever since Arafat got the silly thing. The literature prize is also questionable at times, although the track record there is somewhat better. It's a shame, really. The science prizes are still real, but the peace prize brings the whole "brand" down.

And I say this as an environmentalist who thinks climate change is a real issue. I just think Gore's doom and gloom approach is counterproductive. We should be awarding prizes to people who develop new technologies that permit increasing numbers of people to enjoy modern lifestyles without the pollution that such lifestyles have caused in the past.

M.C., Washington DC, USA

I can't see the need in what is a well argued article to drag Yasser Arafat and swipe him in as being another controversal nominee. The criticisms that are being made aginst the Nobel prize Committee equally appply to the subjective manner in which the nomination of Arafat is equated to that of Al Gore.

Today's events in Gaza highlights the fact that Arafat was able during his lifetime to unite all the palestinians and this factor did contribute to paece in the region.

SATYAJIT BOOLELL, Vacoas, Mauritius

One point:
Nobel prize: awarded by Norwegian parliament!
Norway: left majority (Socialists, Left-wing-soccialists)

Norway's government hate the US-government!
Kick in the leg!
2002 Carter
2007 Gore
2012 Michael Moore

Alfred E. Neumann, Boston, Mass.

Henry Kissinger was easily the least deservimg. It is understandable that the right-wing Times is reluctant to acknowledge this. Anyway, what is the credibility of a Peace Prize that did not consider Mahatma Gandhi deserving?

Punky, India,

Great article. Henric, you missed the point. This is not 'the best work.' Its bull.

The will also requires the distribution of '...prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.'

Nine things weren't true- 11, if you include the title and the classification of the film as factual documentary. His lies become the story- this does more harm than good. It reminds me of a report into WMDs. Benefit?

It doesn't make him evil, just hapless, but he's damaged the debate and given the nay-sayers an open goal.

The man's a balloon- the prize is cheapened. If I had one, I'd give it back. Or give it LJ Burton. All the scientists should, as a matter of principle. Look at the first winners for worthy recipients. Then look at Al...Perhaps that other balloon, David Icke will get next year's?

jesper lemons, Prestwich, Manchester

We hoped that such an august body could raise itself above the clamour for Climate Change, but, alas, no. Einstein will be turning in his grave along with the multitude of serious, gifted and tireless who won awards in Stockholm for there individual brilliance. What has Mr Gore done apart from climb onto a bandwagon? He has joined the band of 'we haven't a clue about what's going on, but there is prestige in it', there is a fever of misplaced angst oozing from the glitterati, the pop elites and from keen-eared politicians. In its misdirection there is the essence of lost religiosity and a lame effort to fill the gap with mock-sainthood and studied martyrdom that is easily converted into self-justification and ego because the faith bit and the discipline thing and the selflessness gismo have all been taken away; only celebrities, apparently, can now avail us of the truth! That sickeningly nice concern enabling entry to heaven on earth - come back God!

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England

It is worth remembering that the Peace Prize will always be political as it is awarded by politicians ... five members of the Norwegian parliament (Storting) in fact.

What a contrast to the prizes awarded by the Swedish committee in the other disciplines!

Raymond Lipton, Cambridgeshire, UK

Dear Samantha,
According to the will of Alfred Nobel the price is to ge given to "one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Note the first stated virtue 'work for fraternity among nations', we have to reach mutual understanding to live in peace. Equal harvesting and preserving of the natural resources are essential for fraternity.

Henric Hansson, Sydney, Australia

No Ross Clark, it is Menachem Begin who is the least worthy Nobel Peace prize winner.

Arafat comes a close second though.

Krish, Sydney, Australia

Arafat least worthy? With the benefit of hindsight denied the then committee he almost makes it, but Henry Kissinger's award not only took the prize, but took it beyond parody.

Don Murray, Edinburgh, Scotland

What has climate change got to do with peace? We all know Gore is telling a few porkies over climate change so any old liar is worthy of the prize now then. Just like everything else this has now been tarnished.

People are beginning to wake up to him so he gets the prize, what is going on here please?

Samantha Jones, Bucks, England

Thank you for a breathe of fresh air on this farce.. The real funny thing is that the IPCC refutes all that Al says, yet they are named as co-winners.!! I think he should return the Oscar, or have it for the fantasy section. Once again it is only the 'Elites' who believe this drivel. Nearly 95% of the letters are not for Al. He is the worlds best conman that is all. I bet he does not fly to Norway via commercial jet!!!!!!!!.

Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Tx

I think that G. W. Bush deserve this kind of prices more than anyone else. He's working days and nights for peace around this planet is'nt it ?!!

Soufiene, Sheffield, UK

It's just an Oscar.

Paul Francis, Brisbane, Australia

I'm no scientist, but when I have a campfire or burn a log on the fireplace I can see smoke rise into the air. So I know that my actions are affecting the atmosphere. I know my other actions and the actions of other people may also be affecting the environment. The question here and the question in regards to global warming has always been how much effect are humans having on the environment.
"Deniers" like Creighton and Lomborg are actually closer to agreement with the IPCC than Al Gore is.

Fore example the IPCC predicts a sea level rise of just over a foot in this century, which Lomborg and Creighton generally accept. While Al Gore predicts a rise of 20 feet or more. So who agrees with the consensus?

Mike Sorensen, las vegas, USA

I rarely read a column on such a controversial topic that I agree with so wholeheartedly. So, in short, I guess my comment is, amen.

C. Revis, Chicago, USA

Why should anyone expect a professional politician to be overly concerned with the truth of whatever proposition it is he seeks to make in order to further his own position? It may even be that he becomes the gullible victim of his own rhetoric and to that extent genuinely believes in the questionable if not ridiculous nostrums which he is peddling!

Climate change has been seized upon by political aspirants the world over in order to propose global solutions which will distract from local solutions that may actually be practicable and sustainable. It is always easier to divert attention from what may by hard choices be achieved to limited benefit to broader issues which are usually an excuse for inaction.

As usual, much activity and precious little action.

Barnes, Gozo.

John Barnes, Xaghra, Gozo, Malta