I don't want to divert the discussion as to whether global warming is real or not, but assuming it is wrong in every regard there is still no reason to expect the return of a nobel prize.

There have been other prizes awarded based on what turned out to be incorrect science. There was a time when we believed atoms were truly indivisible, but we now know that this is no longer the case. Should the discoveror of the atom lose their prize because of this (assuming they existed then to have gotten it)? I don't think so.

Even if the only value in global warming was to spark large scale studies into mankind's impact on nature I think it is well deserved. There was no fraud to try and trick people and as a result of publicity about global warming countless people have altered their daily lifestyles for the better.

Permalink | Report