Would a physicist or chemist with work that spawned persistent criticisms about mishandling data win the Nobel Prize? For that matter, would one with even a glimmer of empirical doubt even make the short list? The obvious answer is no. The Peace Prize is a political prize just as global warming is a religious debate. The sold-out bluehairs in Oslo are clearly more interested in gestures and PR on this issue than they are in concrete, irrefutable advance. Just like the Academy in Los Angeles.
The question is not whether the Earth is getting warmer. It is, with little doubt. How much warmer, the extent and reversibility of humans' contribution, and the dynamics of change are all far murkier questions. Roughshod empirical work and calls for immediate action before such work can be performed are neither laudable nor excusable in fields other than "Peace."
Given that the Nobel Prize is considered the acme of the economics profession, the award of the Peace Prize to Albert should raise doubts about the objectivity of the selection process and the value of assiduous empirical detail to the committee. Presumably (hopefully) a different batch of bluehairs are responsible for evaluating work in other fields.
2 comments:
Given the popularity that Steven Landsburg enjoys among readers of this blog, it is worth noting his comments about Gore's contribution to peace. This seems to be the right track.
Certainly more structured analysis would redeem Gore's work, effectively putting an end to the snarky comments about how the Nodel committee actually intended to give him the Literature prize for his work in fiction, but then decided that Doris Lessing might not live until next year, so they needed to give it to her.
Aren't you supposed to be gracious towards your colleagues, especially when you share the Nobel Peace Prize?
Not Albert...
Post a Comment