Slate has a piece up explaining why Gore’s Nobel is so well deserved. The author, Stephen Faris, uses science to prove his point: that climate change has a direct relationship with armed conflict. His first example is Darfur. As evidence of global warming’s effects on that conflict, Faris points readers to an article in the Atlanitc by . . . Stephen Faris. He also points to article by UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon that appeared in the Washington Post over the summer:
Forgive me if I’m not overwhelmed by the sourcing here. But Faris also links to…Free Republic. Now he’s got me:
Bottom line: Sudan is just about the most backward, screwed up place on earth. The people of that country have been killing each other for many years and for many reasons, and it may be, to some degree, aggravated by changes in climate, which may be, to some degree, related to man-made warming. What we do know is that cooling seems to have a seriously deleterious effect on peace and stability. Perhaps the Nobel committee might want to consider giving next year’s prize to the chairman of Exxon Mobil, which may be, to some degree, helping to stave off the well established dangers of global cooling.
