If the Nobel Foundation had any respectability left, it lost it when Al Gore and the IPCC were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their work on climate change. Before this it had already been plain that the awarding of Nobel Prizes, the Peace prize and others, were highly political. How else can both Hayek and a socialist be awarded the economics prize at the same time? They can’t both be right.

The latest Nobel Peace Prize hasn’t just been awarded for something that happens to be politically popular right now. What do shrill proclamations about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming have to do with peace? What does the advocating of statist environmental laws and regulations have to do with peace? Not a thing. In fact, they are very nearly the opposite of peaceful, fomenting special interest warfare through statist politics, and including legalized plunder.

Moreover, the IPCC itself is a highly politicized organization, dominated by ideological government scientists and non-scientist politicians and bureaucrats. But Al Gore is even worse. His movie, An Inconvenient Truth is rife with errors, possibly even outright lies, and even Gore is significantly at odds with the so-called IPCC “consensus.” If that weren’t bad enough, Al Gore refuses to debate his critics.

For more on this farce, see here, here (and here), here, here, here, here, here, and here. And also here, although I don’t agree with Lomborg’s unqualifiedly positive assessment of the IPCC.

[Update 10/16/07 12:45pm: Here are some more blog reactions: retired climate scientist Philip Stott (1, 2); an official IPCC reviewer calls for its abolition; and quite a few more listed here. And for a little taste of Gore’s true character, see here.]

Hat tip to Dick Clark for bringing this video to my attention. He correctly notes: “This wonderful cartoon from the 1950s shows that Americans used to know what “liberty” meant!”

The University of Florida police prevented a journalism student from completing his questions of guest speaker Senator John Kerry by dragging him from the room, tasering him (while he was down, as far as I can tell, but bad nonetheless), and then arresting him on a phony charge of “disrupting a public event.” I don’t agree with the young man’s views and he was being a little antagonistic (angry Democrat), but as the videos show it was the police department that created the disruption. The young man had done nothing to warrant the campus police doing what they did. Do they not realize that public debate like that can sometimes get quite heated and this is a normal and desirable feature of democracy? (Note the scene illustrating freedom of speech and democracy in the first couple minutes of this video.) No, apparently, they do not; rather, they seem to think that anything other than soft ball questions of “our great and dear leaders” warrants being assaulted and falsely arrested.

As a public figure and one of our so-called political leaders, Kerry should have done something to stop the abuse and protect the young man. Instead, Kerry did nothing except attempt to talk over the disruption and make a show of answering the young man’s questions. Obviously, Kerry is not concerned with defending civil liberties and keeping government power in check.

Read about it here.

~*~

And here’s yet another disturbing example: the September 17, 2007 beating of David Snyder in Roseland, Indiana. What’s more disturbing is that 27% of the readers of that article seem to think what the police officer did was proper. Say “bah,” sheeple.
~*~

And here’s yet another. Video of such cases seem to be popping up on the internet more and more often.