Talk:2007 Nobel Peace Prize

Awards Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Norway

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

Role of scientists[edit]

I added explanation of the role of IPCC scientists, since there has been confusion by editors of articles about some individual scientists indicating that they had been awarded the Nobel prize because they had contributed to the IPCC. Though this isn't correct, the contributions of these scientists have been explicitly acknowledged and this represents quite a significant accolade, and therefore sufficiently notable to be mentioned. The final quote ("contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC") is from the certificates presented to many of the scientists who made the most significant contributions, though the only source I had for it was this image: [1] -- should this reference be included on the main page? TimOsborn (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, IPCC have now issued a statement supporting the latter: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf so can cite that. TimOsborn (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ipcc np award?[edit]

Everytime (?) IPCC convene there is a new definition for climate change yet the IPCC receive a Nobel Prize. In addition, they persistently fight (till death- just an expression) for anthropogenic cause of global warming when in their definition they use the word "maybe". If you are dealing with a scientific principle there is no such thing as "maybe", then why did they receive an award for a Nobel Prize. Is it ok for the Nobel Prize recipient to start from a guess [then WIN the NP], then progresses to quite improved guess, and a series of quite improved guesses as to the number of changes in their definition of climate change and later I really don't know if they could come up with the true definition without using "maybe". Supposedly the award will be given when the "maybe" word no longer exists in their definition not before it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.159.241 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is ill-informed soapboxing, this page is for specific proposals for article improvement. . dave souza, talk 20:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]