About Critical Mass [dot] Writing [dot] Reviews [dot] Contact
« previous entry | return home | next entry »

October 13, 2007 [feather]
Noble Nobels

I'm still reeling about Al Gore's Nobel Prize, which many commentators have noted is for a prospective contribution based on highly dubious science, rather than for a proven contribution that has stood the test of time.

But I'm delighted about Doris Lessing -- and as a private sort myself, I identify completely with her reaction to learning about the prize:

You become a public property when you win something like that. And while the honor might be nice, the obligations and exposure and compulsory interactions with angling people about pointless things that come with it would seem to warrant Lessing's anticipatory curse.

UPDATE: More along the lines of Gore's science from Melanie Phillips.
posted on October 13, 2007 1:19 PM




Trackback Pings:

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.erinoconnor.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1328





Comments:

Global warming is "dubious science"? What scientific journals have you read lately? Or are you referring to the mainstream media's tendency to offer "balance" on such matters as creationism and global warming, behaving as if the scientific side and the opinionated know-nothing side have equal evidence.

Every peer reviewed science journal article (and there are a thousand) agrees. But if you'd rather get your science news from Entertainment Tonight, well, then stop offering your opinion on the validity of confirmed scientific findings.
Posted by: C.C. at October 13, 2007 5:41 PM



C.C., Erin didn't say global warming was dubious science. She said Al Gore's film is based on dubious science. And it is.

Also, may I point out that on Erin's blog she is free to offer her opinion on anything she chooses. Your permission is not necessary.
Posted by: Laura(southernxyl) at October 13, 2007 7:14 PM



I like it warm, I think it will be nice to be warm. Al Gore is Dumb
Posted by: Rick at October 13, 2007 9:24 PM



...reminds me of something that you quoted from A S Byatt (and that I linked) a couple of years ago:

"Books I have read that were written at a moment of social-political crisis tend to be incomprehensible 20 years later. Books that are written about some problem of 20 or 50 or 100 years ago are written with understanding and somehow also illuminate the present and the future."

The delay required to determine if someone's work is worth of the Peace Prize should be longer, not shorter, than that required for the scientific prizes. I'm not sure where literature should fall in this spectrum.
Posted by: david foster at October 14, 2007 10:41 AM