Is the Noble prize really NOBLE ?

(inspired by email send by Jessiekca Kurular)

---

Opinion 3.

It is impossible to satisfy everyone when giving awards. I always believe that reasonable people with same information will arrive at the same conclusion.  So the nobel committee probably had reasonable people using a standard process selected those people.. If you or me were doing the job we would have come to the same conclusion.

babu

Sammy B. wrote :
Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 9:40 AM

Hi Babu,
Thanks for your opinion about this issue.

I understand your point that most people would try to be rationale and use data provided to them in the best possible way to make a fair decision. However some awards are disputable where decisions have not been made using this guidelines and they expose political alignment.

I am afraid to say that given the two choices (Gore v/s Sendler) I would not have trouble deciding who devoted more time to peace and risked ones life to have deserved it. Its a proven marketing strategy by Gore that put his ahead with his global warming theories. Nobody marketed Sender's selfless acts of serving humanity in the real sense under threat to her own life and later enduring physical torture by the Nazis.

I wonder why the noble committee has not yet gotten around to commemorate Mr. Gandhi who is the inventor of the non-violence movement which introduced peaceful protest to the world.

I think it comes down to what makes sense politically to the committee members and how well they are influenced by their friends in their fields of interest.

Up to 1960, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded almost exclusively to Europeans and Americans.

 Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948) has become the strongest symbol of non-violence in the 20th century. It is widely held – in retrospect – that the Indian national leader should have been the very man to be selected for the Nobel Peace Prize. He was nominated several times, but was never awarded the prize. Why?

These questions have been asked frequently: Was the horizon of the Norwegian Nobel Committee too narrow? Were the committee members unable to appreciate the struggle for freedom among non-European peoples?" Or were the Norwegian committee members perhaps afraid to make a prize award which might be detrimental to the relationship between their own country and Great Britain?

Gandhi was nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947 and, finally, a few days before he was murdered in January 1948. The omission has been publicly regretted by later members of the Nobel Committee; when the Dalai Lama was awarded the Peace Prize in 1989, the chairman of the committee said that this was "in part a tribute to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi". However, the committee has never commented on the speculations as to why Gandhi was not awarded the prize, and until recently the sources which might shed some light on the matter were unavailable.

1937 : Cecil of Chelwood, Viscount (Lord Edgar Algernon Robert Gascoyne Cecil), United Kingdom
Writer, i.a. ex-Lord Privy Seal; Founder and President, International Peace Campaign

1938 : Office international Nansen pour les Réfugiés (Nansen International Office for Refugees), Geneva, Switzerland
An international relief organization, started by Fridtjof Nansen in 1921

1939 : None - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section

1947 : Shared
Emily Greene Balch, USA
Formerly Professor of History and Sociology; Honorary International President, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

John Raleigh Mott - USA
Chairman, International Missionary Council; President, World Alliance of Young Men's Christian Associations

1948 : None - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
 

(http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/gandhi/index.html)
(http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/)

Sammy,

Al gore didn't win for presenting the slide show, he won for the concern he raised in public which will everntually saves millions of life and everntually planet, and not to say the Irene did unnoble thing, She definately helped humanity a lot.

Its like in a game there are only one first price winner, that definately does not mean that the second and third price winners didn't knew the game, its just that their share to the game is little bit less then the first price winner.

hope you will agree.
 

M. Patel

Hey M.P.,
Good to hear from you. Good to have a healthy debate on opposing views.

I am hoping you believe that NATURE is more stronger than anything that man can do to it. Every so many centuries there has been a overhaul of all resources and life starts all over again. Nothing we can or cannot do will change what is destined to happen to earth and all of mankind. We are but a speck in the WHOLE universe.

From one article on the web ...   Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were.

In a stunning turn of events data released by NASA shows that the 4 warmest years ever recorded occurred in the 1930's, with the warmest year on record being 1934 (not 1998). Lets see if Al Gore revises his road show. Update - Global Warming is actually a Y2K bug!

Before you watch these videos that will dispute global waring is a HOAX I think that the "not so noble" prize should have been given by feats actually performed (by Irene) rather than speculative unproven facts (by Gore) that are used to simulate that they have done something that may or may not occur in the some time late future. I also understand that the noble committee can choose to give the noble award to whoever they wish to, including terrorists who have blown up children in cold blood. Hence it has no value to me other than just another bogus title to ones profile.

Talk to you soon.