Here's another attempt to explain IPCC politics to those who can't grasp the issues.

To begin with, this appears to be the first time that the Nobel Peace Prize has gone to scientists for doing science, as opposed to engaging in advocacy or direct conflict mitigation.

For example, the award also went to: Medicins Sans Frontieres in 1999; the International Campaign to Ban Landmines in 1997; the Pugwash Conferences (1995); and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War in 1985.

In other words, until now the Nobel Peace Prize has been clearly recognized as a political award. The award to the IPCC thus implies that the IPCC is not a predominately scientific, but is in fact a political process: the award equates the scientific study of climate change with political advocacy.

In this, it positions climate change science -- indeed, environmental science as a whole -- as a normative exercise rather than a scientific process, especially with those inclined to doubt the objectivity of environmental science in the first place.

Even though science as a discourse is supported by, and supportive of, existing power structures, its findings and methods have usually been regarded as transparent and objective.

In this case, however, that boundary has been breached. The scientific process itself is repositioned by the Peace Prize as normative political argumentation. This victory for the postmodern critique of science is probably not a desirable outcome either for the climate change science community, or for that matter, for climate change advocates.

Perhaps it is the desired outcome. Science has always been inconvenient for activists. It's so tediously, well, scientific. In its newer, more degraded and politicized form it's more like politics or journalism, easier to manipulate and hornswoggle the rubes.

But there is perhaps a more fundamental implication. The two major issues that have been positioned over the past decade as existential threats to developed societies are terrorism and national security, and global climate change.

While neither has been completely successful -- the U.S. administration is highly unpopular at this time, and the U.S. has not signed the Kyoto Protocol -- both continue to be dominant chords of international policy with one playing to conservative elites and one playing to social democratic and liberal elites. The latest award, therefore, is not an aberration but merely extends current trends.

This would be of less concern if these two dominant archetypal crises did not so clearly rely on exaggeration and fear for their effectiveness. In a high information content society, where individuals increasingly construct their own information environment, fear -- especially existential fear that is beyond the control or even understanding of the common person -- serves as an effective means by which a particular theme can be effectively marketed, whether it be security and the need for an authoritarian state, or climate change as a driver for substantial reductions in quality of life.

Actually they have the same objectives: two paths to the same place but with different cruise directors. In both cases there are substantial reductions in quality of life and a more authoritarian state. This should give us pause, reason to reject both sides.

Clearly, both security and climate change are complex and multifaceted issues requiring intelligent understanding and responses. That is not the issue. Indeed, given the complexity of these challenges, it is arguable that a progressive and informed society would, after due consideration of different values and options, make the most robust decision.

Ironically, the Nobel Prize for Peace award is in some ways evidence that such a path has been rejected by the liberal elites, just as it has been rejected by the U.S. administration in regards to national security.

The message is that -- just like negative and misleading political campaigning -- fear works. Do not expect a return to reasoned discourse anytime soon.

No, not soon. The best we can do is to point and laugh at the worst offenders at every opportunity, and in this way hasten the day when their absurdity becomes common knowledge. Not that they will go quietly. They'll think of some new way to deceive society. As long as we are dumb enough to care about politics and politicians they will exploit our stupidity.