Getting the Story Right: The Peak Oil vs. Climate Change Inanity Continues [Casaubon's Book]

The IEA has pretty much conceeded peak oil, announcing that growth to meet demand in the coming decades will come from entirely mythical sources. Ok, they didn't say that, what they said in the latest World Energy Outlook was that the majority of oil production by 2030 will be coming from "fields yet to be developed or found." But what that means is "we're hoping someone with magic powers will come and reverse the long-stand trend towards decline in oil discovery." Because we know that oil discovery peaked in 1964 and has been declining ever since, so that we are consuming oil five times faster than we are discovering it. According to energy consultants IHS, 90% of all known or suspected reserves are in production already. In a world that consumes 40,000 plus barrels per second, that's a pretty big deal.

And this comes after an IEA whistleblower accused the IEA of intentionally overestimating reserves in order to please rich world countries and avoid a financial panic. If that turns out to be the case, which from all the independent research into reserves being done, seems likely, the decline of oil is going to come a lot faster and harder than many people think.

So you'd think that peak oil writers would have enough to write about - after all, this is pretty much the nail in the coffin. So why are they still banging hard on the idiotic "peak oil is more important than climate change" drum?

Consider the latest by Kjell Aleklett, who just published a piece at Energy Bulletin that claims that the IPCC scenarios are "pure fantasy." in which he argues, yet again, that we don't have enough fossil fuels to hit the worst case IPCC scenarios.

To a certain extent, Aleklett is right - he (and James Hansen) have shown repeatedly that actual oil reserves can't get us to the old tipping point numbers, and he's done a great deal of good work in re-estimating coal figures. The problem is Aleklett doesn't seem to grasp that this work was important once, and is now obsolete, and the emerging consensus among climate researchers is that climate sensitivity is much greater than it ever was. And this is a profound failure of analysis - the nature of scientific inquiry is that at times your work will be found to have been superceded by new knowledge. The appropriate response to that is to go do all the other important work that now needs doing - not to spend time whinging that no one is paying attention to you any more. And this is particularly troubling because the questions he raises - for example about world coal reserves - are so enormously important - it is simply his conclusions that are wrong:

"The climate change negotiators main question should therefore be, "How will we use coal in the future?".

Today's coal production - hard coal and brown coal - is approximately 3000 million "tonne of oil equivalent" (toe). For the "Business as Usual" scenarios coal production must increase seven-fold by 2100. That is an increase of 600%. In the last 20 years, global coal reserves have been revised downwards by 25%. The most recent case was India that halved its declared reserves. The USA is the "Saudi Arabia of coal" with 29% of global reserves. The former Soviet Union has 27%, China 14%, Australia 9%, India 7% and South Africa 4% of global reserves. That means that 90% of the fossil coal reserves exist in these six nations. We can also assert that the same six nations today produce 86% of the world's coal.

If emissions of coal are to increase by 600 percent this cannot occur without the USA - that has the worlds largest coal finds - increasing its coal production by the same amount. In an article published in May 2009 in the International Journal of Coal Geology we have studied the historical trends and future possible production of coal in the USA. The production of high-grade anthracite is decreasing while the production of brown coal in Wyoming is increasing. Future coal production is completely dependent on new coal mining in the state of Montana. According to the constitution of the USA, federal authorities cannot force Montana to produce coal. In Montana they do not want to produce coal since the mining will destroy the environment and large areas of agricultural land. If the constitution is changed and mining of coal in Montana does occur it is possible for the USA to increase its coal production by 40% but not by 100%. An increase of 600% is pure fantasy.

Today, the world's largest coal producer is China. Its reserves of coal are half the size of the USA's and China has no possibility of increasing its coal production by 100%. A 600% increase there is also pure fantasy. Russia, with the world's second largest coal reserves, can increase its production significantly but the untouched Russian coal reserves lie in central Siberia in an area without infrastructure. Russia is not dependent on this coal for its own energy needs but if mining did begin there some time after 2050 it could only ever be equivalent to a small fraction of today's global production. Therefore, it is impossible for global coal production to increase by 100% and 600% is, once again, pure fantasy."

There is an emerging consensus that 350 ppm is the critical point, and that we have a short period, maybe less than decade to reduce our emissions. Chief NASA climate scientist James Hansen and IPCC chief Rajendra Pachuri are among a rapidly growing number of scientists that have shifted the terms of the discussion, because of emerging evidence that climate change is happening faster and harder than even the IPCC suspected. The Copenhagen Update released recently supports the idea that climate sensitivity is much greater than expected, and suggests that sea level rises may be double what was anticipated.

The problem with what Aleklett says is that we know we can achieve 350ppm on existing fossil fuel reserves because we've already done it - we're at 387 or so. We also know that we can achieve a close approximation of the absolute worst outcomes if the methane trapped in the permafrost begins to melt - something that the 2007 IPCC report spoke of as a distant possibility - but that we learned in 2008 was already happening. As Joseph Romm and David Lawrence among others have both shown, melting permafrost is more than sufficient to get us to 1000 ppm.

Given this, Aleklett's claim that the *scenarios* are fantasy is ridiculous. It is true we can't get there by directly emitting fossil fuels, but that doesn't matter, because we can get there by emitting enough fossil fuels to lead to massive methane emissions. His work in documenting fossil fuel reserves is important and valuable, but he doesn't seem to grasp that the terms of the discussion have changed. His demand that we keep talking about the old terms makes no sense at all - particularly when there is so much important work to be done on the intersection of climate change and peak energy. For example, developing an optimization figure for a rate at which we *can* safely burn fossil fuels, with both the goal of adapting for long term depletion and also preserving what we can of the climate would be nice.

The reason this frustrates me so much is that this doesn't help Peak Oil's cause, or help it enter into the discussion. Instead, it marginalizes peak oil advocates, giving people the impression that they have to choose between crises. It undermines the really good work done by people like Aleklett and makes people, myself included, take him less seriously - and that's a real problem, because his knowledge of energy reserves is among the best in the world.

I wish it was just Aleklett, but it isn't. John Michael Greer is a colleague, and I hope a friend of mine. We're joint founders of the a Peak Oil Interfaith discussion, we have the same publisher, and I'm a profound admirer of this thought. While we've had some lively arguments over the years, we've done so respectfully. And Greer is precisely the sort of climate change skeptic that we can deal with - he recognizes explicitly that absolute need to reduce consumption radically. Indeed, I have no doubt he'd sign on for changes stronger than any government woudl ever approve. But I wish he'd be a lot more careful about what he writes about climate change, because he doesn't seem to hold to his usual meticulous standards of research when writing about climate change. He says in last week's essay:

"There's good reason to think that the feedback loop by which popular attitudes generate their own supporting evidence via dubious science has distorted the global warming debate. The fingerprints show up all over the weird disconnect between current global warming science and the findings of paleoclimatology, which show that sudden, drastic climate changes have been routine events in Earth's long history; that the Earth was actually warmer than the temperatures predicted by current doomsday scenarios at the peak of the current interglacial period only six thousand years ago; and that the Earth has been a hothouse jungle planet without ice caps or glaciers for around 80% of the time since multicellular life evolved here. Technically speaking, we're still in an ice age - the current interglacial is on schedule to end in the next few thousand years, giving way to a new glaciation for a hundred thousand years or so, with several million years of further cycles still in the pipeline - and claims that setting the planetary thermostat a little closer to its normal range will terminate life on Earth are thus at least open to question."

Here Greer identifies a breach that doesn't exist (climate researchers generally work with paleoclimatologists, and the IPCC certainly included quite anumber of them), recites the oft quoted "it was warmer 6000 years ago" bit (yes, but only in the summer, and only in the northern hemisphere, according to the NOAA, "there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was warmer than today's temperatures"), and repeats, as though climate scientists have never heard this before that the earth has been warm for most of its history.

This is a technique that is commonly used by Global Warming Skeptics - to speak as though they alone have noticed obvious scientific facts - my favorite is the "it could just be the sun" standard, as though no scientists have never even thought that the sun might have something to do with warming. It is absolutely true that earth was warmer through much of its history. It is also true that human beings were not present through most of that period, and certainly there weren't 6-9 billion of us relying heavily on a stable climate for agriculture. Climatologists are worried that agriculture won't be viable in many of the places people live, and that those people will die, or migrate and start wars. They are also concerned that some of the places we live and grow food will be under water, or have salty groundwater. They are worried about more diseases. They are worried about more death. This is, IMHO, a good thing to worry about.

No climate scientist I'm aware of prophesies human extinction - the single most extreme version I can think of would be James Lovelock's claim of "a few breeding pairs of humans at the poles" but even he admits to overstating for rhetorical purposes, and his is hardly a mainstream viewpoint. Most scientists seem to spend their time worrying about ordinary, simple things like people dying without adequate crop irrigation or drinking water. They are fixated on saving millions, maybe even billions of lives over the course of the century, but not on saving the human race from extinction. IMHO, saving a few million lives alone would be enough to be worth doing.

Greer goes on to write that the narratives of peak oil and climate change are fundamentally different, in a segment of his writing that simply doesn't make a lot of coherent sense. He says,

"The global warming story, if you boil it down to its bones, is the kind of story our culture loves to tell - a narrative about human power. Look at us, it says, we're so mighty we can destroy the world! The peak oil story, by contrast, is the kind of story we don't like - a story about natural limits that apply, yes, even to us. From the standpoint of peak oil, our self-anointed status as evolution's fair-haired child starts looking like the delusion it arguably is, and it becomes hard to avoid the thought that we may have to settle for the rather less flattering role of just another species that overshot the carrying capacity of its environment and experienced the usual consequences.

It's hard to think of a less popular claim to make these days. Similar logic may be behind the way that both climate change believers and deniers shy away from the paleoclimatic data that shows just how lively Earth's climate has been in prehistoric times."

Here Greer's normal coherent reasoning falls apart. First there's his premise that climate scientists don't pay attention to paleoclimatic data - that's just wrong. For example, paleoclimatic data is precisely why we worry about tipping points and rapid shifts being caused by anthropogenic activity - because we know that they have happened before. Ice core climate data is central to establishing the case for global warming - this is very basic knowledge, and I simply find it hard to believe Greer has never encountered it before. Again, we're all concerned precisely because we have no idea how human beings will respond to the scale of climate change we may be facing. Just as we don't exactly know how we will respond to peak oil - in both cases, though, we have ample reason to suspect the results will not be happy ones.

Perhaps as importantly, his claim that peak oil and climate change are stories with only one meaning, in opposition to one another is just another false dichotomy, the sort of thing he generally tends to deplore. It is certainly true that you could argue that the story of climate change is "we can destroy the world" just as you could argue that a narrative that a people built a fossil fuel dependent agriculture and society and then starved and froze because the energy resources to continue it constituted a similar narrative, and Greer agrees that there are people who tell that version of the peak oil story. Equally, you could read both AGW and Peak Oil as stories about banging up against natural limits - in one case a limit of resources, in another, the limit of the ability of the atmosphere to absorb our outputs. Greer should know as well as anyone that stories don't have inherent meanings - they have the meanings we apply to them. His caricature of the climate change story seems to be based on misunderstandings about both what climate science is based upon and on what climatologists say.

If we are telling stories, I'd like to propose another one. In it, climate change and peak oil are both acute situations, coming together. It turns out that after using fossil energies to put off the material limits of our world, we found that there were real limits after all - both to the fossil energies we have to use and also to our environment's ability to withstand degradation and absorb our outputs. This is not a strange concept - that is, if you are drinking beer and pissing in the stream, it is perfectly possible to imagine you will have to deal simultaneously with rendering the water undrinkable and running out of beer.

Both of these problems, treated separately, lend themselves to apocalyptic narratives that are probably largely untrue - unless, of course, you consider the death of many people who didn't have to die to be apocalyptic, which some of us do. Together, they lend themsevles to narratives that are more complex - and simpler. They up the likelihood that things that even moderate people call apocalyptic might happen - almost certainly not the extinction of the best and most adaptive primate on the planet, but enough suffering and death to be a very, very bad thing. They also lead directly to a single solution. We can't keep using fossil fuels for two reasons. We also know that we can't build out resources fast enough to keep living our way of life. So we're going to be using less energy - all the stories lead there, and decisively.

We really like dichotomies in our society. We like either/or stories, because we've been trained to like them. Every newspaper story is written as an either/or, every kid learns to write "pro/con" stories. Everyone likes a nice dichotomy, and it rarely matters to us whether they are false. But they often are - and the peak oil vs. climate change discussion is a false dichotomy. The claim that we can choose which side to be on is a false one - because we're banging up against physical realities in both cases. One way or another, we will be addressing those realities - that is the way of the world. It would be so much better to get past the false dichotomies and do it now, and start telling true stories.


Read the comments on this post...

Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Neurotopia

See original: ScienceBlogs Select Getting the Story Right: The Peak Oil vs. Climate Change Inanity Continues [Casaubon's Book]

No OLPC Retail Sales? I'm Still Not Convinced

At the IADB seminar on ICT in the classroom, I asked Nicholas Negroponte why not sell the XO laptop -- at or near cost -- to anyone who wanted one? This gets beyond the hassle of having to convince bureaucrats of the value of the laptop without running pilot programs and delaying the eventual adoption. It (hopefully) creates some side markets in support, software development for non-educational uses of the laptop like rural healthcare, and could enable educational uses without going through the schools themselves, even.

See original: One Laptop Per Child News No OLPC Retail Sales? I'm Still Not Convinced

RIKEN and the Tokyo University of the Arts hold joint symposium on science and art

On Sunday, November 15, 2009, RIKEN and the Tokyo University of the Arts held a joint symposium to commemorate an agreement toward cooperation in research and education with the aim of achieving broad-based advances benefitting all of society.

See original: RIKEN RESEARCH RIKEN and the Tokyo University of the Arts hold joint symposium on science and art

Unearthing chemistry’s rare gems

Stacking at the flick of a switch

Exploring symbiotic mechanisms through the genes of unculturable microorganisms

Genetic analyses help decode symbiosis in the termite gut as a model for the highly efficient conversion of plant cellulose

See original: RIKEN RESEARCH Exploring symbiotic mechanisms through the genes of unculturable microorganisms

WaPo tries to redeem itself: Palin's new nemesis is... [The Island of Doubt]

Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science. In an op-ed published in today's Washington Post, he excoriates Sarah Palin for her illterate essay, published earlier this week, on the topic of climate change.

While former Alaska governor Sarah Palin wrote in her Dec. 9 op-ed that she did not deny the "reality of some changes in climate," she distorted the clear scientific evidence that Earth's climate is changing, largely as a result of human behaviors. She also badly confused the concepts of daily weather changes and long-term climate trends when she wrote that "while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes." Her statement inaccurately suggests that short-term weather fluctuations must be consistent with long-term climate patterns. And it is the long-term patterns that are a cause for concern.

And so on. Of course, when an accomplished scientist tears apart Sarah's Palin's pseudo-scientific musing, the phrase "shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind." The problem remains, however. Why is it that the Washington Post, once one of the great American bastions of journalism, the slayer of Nixon, sees fit to publish an essay on a scientific subject, ghost-written or not, by one of the country's least qualified commentators on matters scientific?

Why is that people like Leshner should be compelled to respond to people like Palin, when the latter is clearly not in a position to offer informed observations?

The failure of the paper's highest profile columnist, George WIll, to admit he has grossly misrepresented the science of climate change poses some real challenges to the owners of the Post, I suppose, given Will's stature in the business. But why seek out or accept essays written by Palin on a scientific subject?

Many of us have been asking this question for months now. The answer, some say, is that the Post is desperate to sell papers. If the distribution department can demonstrate that essays by Palin significantly boost sales -- something I doubt -- then there would be nothing more to say.

I will make one criticism of Leshner's piece, though. He uses the term "doubters" to describe those who refuse to accept the science of climate change. I would prefer the term "deniers" because doubt implies skepticism, and there is no genuine skepticism, in the scientific sense, evident in the attitude of those deny the conclusion that every intellectually honest appraisal has produced. I tend to use the term "pseudoskeptic" because it implies a level of dishonesty or delusion, but denier is probably a more acceptable and less esoteric term for a paper like the Post.

UPDATE: For some reason, the Guardian saw fit to republish Palin's piece. At least the comments there are more fun.

Read the comments on this post...

Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Neurotopia

See original: ScienceBlogs Select WaPo tries to redeem itself: Palin's new nemesis is... [The Island of Doubt]

El Rio Community Health Center honored with 2009 APhA Pinnacle Award [Terra Sigillata]

El Rio.jpgAs I have said on occasion, the health care insurance reform debate seems to have underestimated the role of the clinically-trained pharmacist in improving care and cutting health care costs. Hands-on community-based drug management models have been operating around the US with far less fanfare than cut-rate prescriptions at Wal-Mart or CVS Caremark.

So I was delighted to learn via Phoenix pharmacist commenter, Michael Guzzo, that El Rio Community Health Center in Tucson, Arizona, was recognized this past summer with a 2009 Pinnacle Award from the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) Foundation.

These awards were inspired by and created in response to the increasing importance of the proper use of medications in today's health care environment. Morbidity and mortality associated with improper medication use is a major public health problem, resulting in significant disability and up to 100,000 deaths each year. An estimated 177 billion dollars is spent annually on preventable hospitalizations, lengthened stays, and/or prolonged treatment as a result of prescribing contraindicated therapy, drug-drug interactions, adverse drug reactions, duplication of drug therapy, and/or errors in drug administration.

"The 2009 Pinnacle Award recipients represent those who are shaping the future of health care delivery," said William M. Ellis, APhA Foundation Executive Director and CEO. "Their work shows that system changes and new thinking are not only possible but can enhance medication use and improve patient outcomes. The one constant between all of the award winners is that they never fail to put the patient as the focal point in the care process and I commend them for their commitment to quality."

Guzzo pointed out to me that a four-minute YouTube video is available from APhA detailing the activities of El Rio. Diabetes disproportionately affects Hispanic patients, and especially type II diabetes in Native Americans of the Pima tribe, in the Land of the Sun. Through a series of culturally-sensitive and reading level-appropriate materials and face-to-face medication counseling, El Rio's team of three clinical pharmacists and others are making great strides in improving the quality of life, and decreasing the costs of diabetes complications, for thousands of good folks in the Sonoran region.

Of great pride to me is that the team is led by Pharmboy laboratory graduate, Sandra Leal, PharmD, CDE. We featured an interview with her back in October for the Diversity in Science Carnival during Hispanic Heritage Month. Sandra is featured prominently in the second half of this video.

Congratulations to all the good folks at El Rio who are making a world of difference in the lives of diabetes patients in Arizona and serving as an example for community pharmacy practice models nationwide

Read the comments on this post...

Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Neurotopia

See original: ScienceBlogs Select El Rio Community Health Center honored with 2009 APhA Pinnacle Award [Terra Sigillata]

Emissions are substantially higher than companies and countries report, say scientists.

10/12/2009 BBC Emissions of some greenhouse gases are substantially higher than companies and countries report, say scientists.The gases in question are much more powerful warming agents than CO2, but make a small contribution to climate change as concentrations are low. US researchers found that levels of some of them in the air are five times more [...]

See original: Resources for a sustainable future Emissions are substantially higher than companies and countries report, say scientists.

Even Einstein got a little short of cash now and then [bioephemera]


Albert Einstein has never reminded me much of Dr. Evil. Quite the opposite, in fact. But even Einstein occasionally had to ask for one MEEEEL-LION dollars - for a good cause, of course:

Dear Friend:

I write to you for help at the suggestion of a friend.

Through the release of atomic energy, our generation has brought into the world the most revolutionary force since prehistoric man's discovery of fire. This basic power of the universe cannot be fitted into the outmoded concept of narrow nationalisms. For there is no secret and there is no defense; there is no possibility of control except through the aroused understanding and insistence of the peoples of the world.

We scientists recognize our inescapable responsibility to carry to our fellow citizens an understanding of the simple facts of atomic energy and its implications for society. In this lies our only security and our only hope -- we believe that an informed citizenry will act for life and not death.

We need $1,000,000 for this great educational task. Sustained by faith in man's ability to control his destiny through the exercise of reason, we have pledged all our strength and our knowledge to this work. I do not hesitate to call upon you to help.

Faithfully yours,

[A. Einstein]

Honestly, if this letter weren't from Mike Rhode's blog, I'd think it was made up. It's just too odd! But it's real, all right - and here's the archived text at FAS. Anybody out there have a similar letter?

I wonder if Einstein ever got his $1M?

PS. "Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists" may be among top ten letterheads ever. "It's not just an emergency, dammit, it's an ATOMIC emergency!"

Read the comments on this post...

Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Neurotopia

See original: ScienceBlogs Select Even Einstein got a little short of cash now and then [bioephemera]

Carnivorous, worm-like amphibians invade London: 'The Secret World of Naked Snakes', part I [Tetrapod Zoology]


On Monday 7th December the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) hosted the one-off event 'The Secret World of Naked Snakes' (part of the ZSL's 'communicating science' series): a whole meeting devoted entirely to those bizarre, poorly known, limbless, worm-like amphibians, the caecilians. The meeting was attended by over 100 people, which really isn't bad going, especially when some of the organisers expressed fears that the event would only be attended by (to quote David Gower) "A handful of caecilian freaks".

Read the rest of this post... |

Read the comments on this post...

Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Neurotopia

See original: ScienceBlogs Select Carnivorous, worm-like amphibians invade London: 'The Secret World of Naked Snakes', part I [Tetrapod Zoology]

COP15 Behind the Scenes: Free bicycles for delegates

Watch the COP15 Behind the Scenes film about the organisation Bicikeli, providing free bicycles for delegates
More in
News & Politics

See original: Uploads by Cop15 COP15 Behind the Scenes: Free bicycles for delegates

Unfair "Danish Text" Analysis Verified . . . by Shell Oil! [The Primate Diaries]

The so-called "Danish Text" agreement that was leaked to the Guardian newspaper has resulted in a firestorm of controversy. By far the most hostile reporting about the outrage that poor nations have expressed has been from the Financial Times.

FT Commentator Fiona Harvey wrote yesterday that:

The more the spotlight falls upon this Danish text, the more like a Danish pastry it looks.

Here's an assertion from Newsweek:

"Under the plan, by 2050 poor countries would have to limit per capita emissions at 1.44 tons, while rich countries would be given extra leeway at 2.67 tons per person."

Really? Well, that would be absolutely shocking - if it bore any relation to the document.

So, where do those figures appear in the draft text?

Can you find them?

No, because they're not there. The figures are supplied by NGOs, after the event. They don't appear in the text. And nowhere are they sourced.

So neither you nor I can make any comment on their validity. Other than this - if these figures have a reasonable pedigree, why isn't it quoted? If you had a case, why wouldn't you make it?

The fact that figures are given no provenance, and the case is not made, gives little credibility to the conclusion.

This unsourced speculation - allusions to figures that are not available to scrutiny - does no favours to the originators. Some friends are worse than enemies.

I hope Harvey is prepared to be shocked.

Read the rest of this post... |

Read the comments on this post...

Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Neurotopia

See original: ScienceBlogs Select Unfair "Danish Text" Analysis Verified . . . by Shell Oil! [The Primate Diaries]

Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Speech Leaked [The Primate Diaries]

The following is an unconfirmed draft of the speech that President Obama plans to give before the Nobel Prize Committee in Oslo later today. Daniel Simpson has transcribed the draft:


(Check against delivery)

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Excellencies, Distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Dear Friends around the world, My fellow Americans.

I stand here today humbled, more than ever, by the task before us, grateful for the honour you've bestowed, and mindful of the sacrifices we must make to do it justice.

Twenty Americans before me have lent their names to this most eminent of prizes, among them three presidents, two sitting. Though challenged by the upheavals of fractious eras, their skill and vision hewed faithfully to the spirit of our forebears, who travelled across an ocean to seek sanctuary, and declared all who made their home there to have been created equal. Where possible, they worked to stem those tides in humankind that would drown us in the storms of violent conflict. And so we recall these efforts, and their fruits, praising Theodore Roosevelt for brokering peace, not chiding him for wielding his trademark stick to subjugate Cuba and the Philippines.

Others were inspired by a higher calling, rising above themselves to speak truths we shirk from hearing. Of these transformative figures, none was more righteous, more perspicacious, than Dr Martin Luther King, who accepted this award 45 years ago. I was surprised to be asked to follow him, and shared with you my doubts that I deserved to be doing so. But I've come here on the understanding that this ceremony is a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century, and for America to lead.

Read the rest of this post... |

Read the comments on this post...

Also check out the featured ScienceBlog of the week: Neurotopia

See original: ScienceBlogs Select Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Speech Leaked [The Primate Diaries]