With global warming pretty much debunked, shouldn't Al Gore have to give back his Nobel Peace prize?

I don't want to divert the discussion as to whether Global Warming|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|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 Environment|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.

As global warming has not been debunked but rather proven by an ever-increasing mass of data, this question will not arise.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.