Nobel Prize 1
heidelberg? oregon petitions?
NORDHAUS?
ICC RETALIATION TRUMP RUBIO
-=-=
-=-=
AN 10 26
Nobel committee makes 'clear reference' to Trump with stunning 'rebuke'
On Friday, in its announcement that the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize has gone to Navi Pillay, the Nobel Committee included a criticism aimed at President Donald Trump. This is according to lawyer and international law reporter Amanda Taub, who writes in the New York Times "that the committee sought to emphasize the importance of international law at a moment when it is under threat, in what amounts to an implicit rebuke of President Trump and other world leaders who are increasingly hostile to that system.”
“In awarding this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wants to remind the world that the rule of law — national and international — underpins the system we have set up to ensure peace and resolve conflicts nonviolently,” the committee said in its prize announcement. But today, it continued, the judges on international courts who “guard the thin red line between order and chaos” are “sanctioned, and their institutions are attacked.”
According to Taub, “That was a clear reference to the Trump administration’s attacks on the international legal order. President Trump had previously imposed sanctions on a number of the judges and lawyers at the International Criminal Court over its investigations into actions by Israelis and Americans, and has said that he believes his power is constrained only by his ‘own morality,’ not by international law. Marco Rubio, his secretary of state, has vowed to dismantle the court ‘brick by brick,’ if necessary.” Mere hours after the prize was announced, notes Taub, Rubio announced new sanctions on the court, this time targeting the I.C.C. as an institution. “We will ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate,” he said in a statement.
As Taub explains, “The court, based in the Netherlands, has authority to try war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, though its jurisdiction is limited to the territory and nationals of its member states. The United States is not a member state, but the court could still seek to try U.S. citizens for their actions overseas.” The Trump administration isn’t alone in its opposition to the I.C.C. Russia has tried and sentenced eight I.C.C. judges in absentia for their roles in issuing a warrant for the arrest of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia for his actions in Ukraine.
The prizewinner Pillay doesn’t currently work for the I.C.C., though she was a judge there in the past. But according to Taub, “Her accomplishments over her long career, as well as her more recent work on contentious questions of genocide law, make her an excellent vehicle for the Nobel Committee’s message about the importance of the international legal system.”
Trump has spent years asserting that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, despite the violence committed by his administration. Following the prize announcement, the president shared a post by the lawyer who defended him during his 2021 impeachment, which declared that Pillay is “an unabashed hater of America and Israel” who “has never done a thing to foster peace” before asserting that it should have gone to Trump.
Trump licks his Nobel-snub wounds after Peace Prize ...
https://www.the-independent.com › ... › US politics
3 hours ago — ... Pillay, “an unabashed hater of America and Israel” who “has never done a thing to foster peace.” The post, written by David Schoen — who ...Read more
-=-=
AN 10 26
President Donald Trump's disappointment at not winning the Nobel Peace Prize was followed by a major move against the International Court, where this year's winner once served as a judge, with the timing suggesting retaliation.
On Friday, the Trump administration announced it was imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), aiming to weaken its operations by limiting financial transactions and possibly cutting off access to essential services.
The announcement followed the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to Navi Pillay, a South African jurist who was a former judge of the ICC and who has been recognized for her work in promoting international law.
The close timing doesn't prove the sanctions were imposed in response to the Nobel Prize decision. As The New York Times reported, the administration had been planning the measures for months.
Marco Rubio, who is the Secretary of State, made it clear that Washington intended to severely limit the court's activities. Rubio stated, "Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC."
The administration had earlier sanctioned individual judges and prosecutors. On Friday, however, it went much further by targeting the institution itself and could thus force banks, insurers and technology companies to sever ties with the court.
The Nobel Committee's decision gave the growing confrontation a rather unusual turn.
The Nobel winner, now 85, served on the ICC's Appeals Chamber from 2003 to 2008 and earlier led the United Nations' human rights office. She also led a U.N. commission that investigated the conflict in Gaza.
On Truth Social, Trump endorsed his former lawyers' criticism of her record.
When announcing her award, the Nobel Committee specifically pointed out the threats international judicial institutions face.
"The judges – those who guard the thin red line between order and chaos – are therefore highly deserving of our praise," the committee said.
The ICC swiftly denounced the sanctions imposed by Washington, accusing the administration of attempting to obstruct international justice. The court president, Tomoko Akane, said the institution would keep operating on its own even in the face of the restrictions.
The clash comes after Trump has on several occasions stated that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Earlier this week, he said no one in the award's history deserved it more, based on his claim that he had settled eight wars.
The sanctions imposed on Friday also showed Washington's long-standing objections to the International Criminal Court conducting investigations that involve American military personnel and to the issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The court, headquartered in the Netherlands, has 125 member states, including several American allies.
To avoid possible sanctions, its officials have already replaced Microsoft software and arranged alternative financial services.
-=-=
-=-=
Economist Paul Krugman mocks Trump for blackmailing Nobel laureate into handing over medal
AN 1 26 DENMARK SAID SHE COULD NOT TRANSFER IT
---
Norway seethes after Nobel laureate slammed for giving Trump her award
an 1 26
AN 1 26
After U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and transported him to a federal detention center in New York City, U.S. President Donald Trump gave his support to Vice President Delcy Rodríguez — not opposition leader María Corina Machado. Rodríguez, an ally of Maduro and the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, is now the South American country's acting president.
Supporters of Machado, a Nobel laureate, were hoping to see her give her Nobel Peace Prize to Trump — the goal, according to Daily Beast reporter Tom Latchem, being getting goal to endorse Machado as Venezuelan president.
Trump endorsed that idea during a Thursday night, January 8 appearance on Fox News. The U.S. president told longtime Fox News host Sean Hannity, "I've heard that she wants to do that. That would be a great honor…. I've stopped eight wars."
But according to the Norwegian Nobel Institute, rules forbid Machado to give someone else her prize.
A Nobel spokesperson told the Daily Beast, "A Nobel Prize can neither be revoked nor transferred to others. Once the announcement of the laureate(s) has been made, the decision stands for all time. As for the prize money, the laureate(s) are free to dispose of it as they see fit."
Latchem notes that Nobel's "organization’s refusal to bend its own rules" will "be a disappointment not just to Trump, but also, to some of his loyalists, who are reported to have lobbied for Machado to hand the president the prize he so covets."
Latchem reports, "Fox News presenter Rachel Campos-Duffy, the wife of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, both 54, is reported to have been working both publicly and privately to get Machado to offer the prize to Trump when they meet next week, according to political journalist Rachael Bade's Substack. Campos-Duffy is said to have worked hard to get Machado the Oval Office audience where she would 'give Trump her Nobel Peace Prize,' Bade writes, saying the push has come from Trump World insiders who know the president is fixated on the award."
*Read Tom Latchem's full article for the Daily Beast at this link (subscription required).
---
===
AN 12 24
Nobel Prize winners call on Senate to reject RFK Jr. nomination: report
===
---
AUS
The Nobel Peace Prize has long been celebrated as the pinnacle of international recognition for peace, democracy, and human rights advocacy. Yet, the authority of the Norwegian Nobel Committee relies fundamentally on political appointments by Norway’s parliament. Its five members, including Jørgen Watne Frydnes, Asle Toje, Anne Enger, Kristin Clemet, and Gry Larsen, bring perspectives shaped by domestic political contexts and broader geopolitical realities. This structure naturally situates the Prize within global political interests and national foreign policies, making claims of impartial global and moral authority increasingly untenable. The 2025 award to Venezuela’s María Corina Machado vividly illustrates this reality, profoundly compromising the Nobel Peace Prize’s moral credibility and revealing its transformation from a beacon of peace into an instrument of geopolitical legitimation.
The Paradox of a ‘War Peace Prize’
Upon her selection, Machado dedicated her Nobel Peace Prize to Donald Trump, praising his “decisive support” and claiming on Fox News that he “deserves” the Prize for having ended “eight wars,” a false claim with fact-checking confirming many of these wars continued or were mischaracterised. This conflation of militarism with peace fundamentally challenges the Prize’s core ethos, undermining its foundational principles and moral credibility.
The celebration becomes particularly grotesque when examined against Trump’s escalating military threats against Venezuela. Machado’s praise for a president who has confirmed CIA covert operations in her own country and is openly considering strikes on Venezuelan territory reveals extraordinary political cynicism.
A Record Rooted in Militarism and Foreign Intervention
Machado’s political career has consistently reflected support for force and external interference, demonstrating her rejection of democratic sovereignty. She signed the Carmona Decree during the 2002 coup attempt against Hugo Chávez, a document that dissolved Venezuela’s democratically approved constitution, the National Assembly, and the Supreme Court. The coup disrupted what the Organization of American States described as the “democratic and constitutional order” under Chávez’s unquestionable electoral mandate as Venezuela’s sitting constitutional president.
Her 2014 appeal to U.S. Congress for military intervention, stating “the only path left is the use of force,” represented escalation in her willingness to invite foreign aggression. More recently, she has supported U.S. military strikes in Caribbean waters, deploying over 10,000 troops, warships, nuclear submarines, and advanced aircraft. These operations have killed at least 32 civilians without due process, earning condemnation from the United Nations as extrajudicial killings violating international law. Machado’s open endorsement of these aggressive policies deepens humanitarian crisis and regional instability.
In a further demonstration of her interventionist stance, in 2018 Machado sent a letter to former Argentine President Mauricio Macri and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, urging them to use their “strength and influence to advance the dismantling of the criminal Venezuelan regime” purportedly linked to “drug trafficking and terrorism.” This appeal for external intervention disregards sovereignty and democratic principles, providing political cover for unprovoked aggression.
Venezuela’s Strategic Wealth and the Ignored Gaza Catastrophe
Escalating U.S. aggression against Venezuela stems directly from its extraordinary oil wealth. Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves, with over 303 billion barrels—exceeding even Saudi Arabia’s 267 billion barrels. This resource endowment has made Venezuela a consistent target of successive U.S. presidential administrations seeking to remove leadership that refuses to subordinate these resources to U.S. corporate interests.
Machado’s support for sanctions compounds this tragedy through devastating humanitarian cost. The Lancet Global Health study, encompassing over 152 nations, links unilateral sanctions to over 500,000 annual excess deaths worldwide, disproportionately harming children under five. U.S.-led sanctions have caused Venezuela to lose oil revenue equivalent to 213% of its GDP between 2017 and 2024, totalling approximately $226 billion in losses. Over 7 million Venezuelans have since left the country, creating one of the hemisphere’s largest refugee crises.
The Nobel Committee’s timing proves particularly damning when contrasted with ongoing crises they have chosen to ignore. The award comes during an unprecedented humanitarian disaster in Gaza, with more than 2.1 million residents suffering from famine conditions, tens of thousands of deaths including numerous children, and decimated healthcare. The Committee paradoxically awards Machado, a vocal promoter of U.S. military and sanction policies, while ignoring those actively struggling to stop this catastrophe.
Violation of International Norms and Historical Precedents
Machado’s advocacy to move Venezuela’s embassy to Jerusalem contravenes UN Security Council Resolution 478, which condemns such actions as violations of international law. Her alignment with aggressive U.S. policies suggests potential Venezuelan participation in broader Middle Eastern conflicts should she assume power.
Machado’s Prize, nominated by a group that included then-Senator Marco Rubio (now U.S. Secretary of State) and Mike Waltz (current U.S. Ambassador to the UN), along with other American politicians, who submitted a letter to the Nobel Committee, continues a troubling pattern exemplified by controversial laureates. These nomination advocates represent the hawkish wing of U.S. foreign policy establishment with long-standing interventionist positions toward Latin America. The pattern includes former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, awarded despite his orchestration of the Vietnam War’s expansion, clandestine bombings in Southeast Asia killing hundreds of thousands, and support for oppressive regimes across Latin America through Operation Condor. Former U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2009 Prize sparked similar criticism amid expanded drone warfare programs that resulted in thousands of civilian casualties. Former Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, despite negotiating the FARC peace deal, served as Defence Minister under the authoritarian former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, during which the military’s “false positives” scandal resulted in the extrajudicial killing of over 6,400 innocent civilians.
The Threat of Regional War and International Law Violations
Current U.S. military deployments near Venezuela, involving thousands of troops and nuclear assets without UN authorisation, violate international law and represent the most serious threat to regional peace in decades. Trump’s confirmation of CIA covert operations and his consideration of strikes inside Venezuelan territory mark a “sharp escalation” beyond the series of recent lethal attacks on boats in the Caribbean, which Democrats and United Nations experts have forcefully condemned as unlawful.
This escalates conflict risks across the entire Caribbean Basin and northern South America, threatening regional stability in unprecedented ways. Venezuela’s strategic location, bordering Colombia, Brazil, and Guyana while controlling key Caribbean shipping routes, means any military intervention could destabilize the broader region and trigger massive refugee flows into neighbouring countries. Machado’s support empowers these destabilising forces, potentially contributing to a broader regional war that could engulf multiple neighbouring states – from Colombia and Brazil to Caribbean nations – in a protracted conflict over Venezuela’s vast energy resources, with implications extending across Latin America and threatening established regional security frameworks.
Conclusion: From Peace Symbol to War Instrument
The Nobel Committee’s award to María Corina Machado represents a final, stark departure from its founding ideals. By endorsing a figure who champions sanctions, coercion, and foreign military intervention, the Prize does not merely make a political choice—it actively legitimizes a toolkit of statecraft that is antithetical to peace. The evidence is overwhelming: from the sanction-induced deaths documented in The Lancet to blatant violations of international law, Machado’s record contradicts every principle the Prize claims to uphold. In doing so, the Committee has completed the Prize’s transformation from a symbol of moral authority into an instrument of geopolitical power. As Venezuela faces the prospect of direct military intervention backed by a Nobel Peace Prize winner, the award risks becoming not a symbol of peace, but an instrument facilitating war and legitimizing the systematic destruction of international law in service of dominant geopolitical interests.
*Juan Zahir Naranjo :{Cáceres is a PhD candidate in Political Science, International Relations & Constitutional Law at the University of the Sunshine Coast (Australia), where he teaches International Justice and Human Rights. His research examines constitutional governance and democratic institutions in comparative perspective. He holds a Bachelor of Laws degree and postgraduate degrees in Constitutional Law, Australian Migration Law, International Relations, and Teaching.}:
---
Thus, Giaever got a Nobel for superconductors, moved into biophysics, cooperated with Philip Morris for more than a decade, still acts as a Heartland “Expert” and keeps demonstrating ignorance of the climate science he attacks.
Most Nobelists know better, as seen in The Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change (2015).
https://theconversation.com/nobel-peace-prize-for-journalists-serves-as-reminder-that-freedom-of-the-press-is-under-threat-from-strongmen-and-social-media-169579
PI ~ duterte, ~ vlad
https://theconversation.com/winners-of-2021-nobel-prize-in-physics-built-mathematics-of-climate-modeling-making-predictions-of-global-warming-and-modern-weather-forecasting-possible-169329
no lnx grfx
The Earth’s weather and climate interactions form one of the most complex systems imaginable. NASA/Joshua Stevens/Earth Observatory via Flickr, CC BY-NC]
Winners of 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics built mathematics of climate modeling, making predictions of global warming and modern weather forecasting possible
October 5, 2021 9.46pm EDT
David Randall
University Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
Disclosure statement
David Randall receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Partners
Colorado State University
Colorado State University provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.
As a climate scientist myself, I was excited to learn that Syukuro Manabe, Klaus Hasselmann and Giorgio Parisi have been awarded the 2021 Nobel Prize for Physics. I first met Manabe when I was a graduate student in the early 1970s, so I was particularly pleased that the prize recognizes the profound importance of Manabe’s decadeslong work on the creation of climate models, as well as the application of those models to understand how increasing levels of greenhouse gases have led to global warming.
A diagram showing an image of clouds, trees, land, ice and oceans all interconnected.]
Climate and weather are influenced by many interconnected systems that all influence one another. Femkemilene via WikimediaCommons, CC BY-SA]
How complicated is the weather and climate system?
Weather is what you see hour to hour and day to day. Weather involves just the atmosphere. Climate is the average weather over decades and is influenced by the oceans and the land surfaces.
Weather and climate are complicated because they involve many different physical processes – from the motion of air to the flow of electromagnetic radiation, such as sunlight, to the condensation of water vapor – across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales.
The system is incredibly complex and interconnected. For example, a cluster of small thunderstorms can influence a weather system that spans a continent.
Before about 1955, weather forecasters extrapolated future weather from changes over the previous days. They used simple but labor-intensive methods that were partly quantitative and partly based on experience.
An drawing of Earth divided into grids and also showing energy interactions.]
Climate models take data from today, break it into smaller three–dimensional chunks and run that data through complicated calculations to predict the future. NOAA via Wikimedia Commons]
The birth of climate models
By the late 1950s, it became possible to make forecasts by running weather models on just-emerging but rapidly improving digital computers.A weather model is a system of equations that expresses the physical laws that govern weather. “Running” a weather model means solving the equations on a computer, using data from today’s weather to predict tomorrow’s weather.
Partly because of computer limitations, the first weather models could only cover portions of the Earth – like North America, for example. But by the early 1960s, faster computers made it possible to create models representing the whole global atmosphere.
Manabe led the development of one such model, building an interconnected web of thousands of equations that could simulate climate and climate change.
With this model, Manabe and his colleagues were able to produce fairly realistic simulations of such things as jet streams and monsoons. While modern global weather prediction and climate models are much more powerful, they can be viewed as descendants of Manabe’s early model.
When Manabe began his work in the early 1960s, some scientists had already pointed out the possibility that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming. In 1967, Manabe and colleague Richard Wetherald used a simplified version of their climate model to perform the first quantitative study of the effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In addition to confirming that carbon dioxide increases global temperatures, they also found that increased water vapor content in warmer air amplifies overall warming because water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas.
Making predictions
Syukuro Manabe was one of the earliest researchers to use climate models to study global warming. Bengt Nyman/WIkimedia Commons, CC BY]
Climate involves both the oceans and the atmosphere, but early models had not united the two. In 1969, Manabe and his oceanographer colleague Kirk Bryan built the first climate model to include both the oceans and the atmosphere.
Building on that progress, in 1975 Manabe and Wetherald published results from a simulation of global warming using a global climate model. In this simulation, they doubled the molar fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 300 parts per million volume to 600 parts per million volume and let the model crunch the numbers.
:{
}:
Nearly 50 years ago, they predicted the overall warming of the Earth’s surface, much stronger warming in the Arctic, a decrease in ice and snow cover, an increase in the average global rate of precipitation and a cooling of the stratosphere. During the 1980s, Manabe’s team also used their models to identify the possibility of increased dryness over some continental regions.
All of those predictions have now come true.
Modern weather and climate models are far more powerful than the models of old and can be used to make both long–term and short–term predictions.
Linking climate, weather and chaos
The work of the other winners of the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics, Hasselman and Parisi, followed on the heels of Manabe’s early research and shows how large–scale interactions across the globe give rise to the chaotic and hard-to-predict behavior of the climate system on day-to-day time scales.
Parisi studied the role of chaos in a wide variety of physical systems and showed that even chaotic systems behave in an orderly fashion. His mathematical theories are central to producing more accurate representations of chaotic climate systems.
Hasselman filled in another gap by helping to further connect climate and weather. He showed that the highly variable and seemingly random weather of the atmosphere gets converted into much more slowly changing signals in the ocean. These large–scale, slow changes to the oceans in turn then modulate the climate.
In combination, the work of Manabe, Hasselman and Parisi has enabled scientists to predict how the chaotic, coupled behavior of the atmosphere, oceans and land surfaces will change over time. While detailed long-range weather forecasts are not possible, humanity’s ability to understand this complicated system is an incredible achievement. As I see it, Manabe, Hasselman and Parisi are richly deserving of the Nobel Prize in Physics.
no women in sci 2021
https://theconversation.com/my-ph-d-supervisor-just-won-the-nobel-prize-in-chemistry-for-designing-a-safer-cheaper-and-faster-way-to-build-molecules-and-make-medicine-169427
fired by exxon: For this groundbreaking work, Dr. Whittingham was awarded the 2019 Nobel Prize in Chemistry along with Dr. John Goodenough of the University of Texas at Austin and Dr. Akira Yoshino of Meijo University in Nagoya, Japan. Today, Whittingham is a Distinguished Professor of Chemistry and Materials Science at Binghamton University in New York.
Prior to joining Binghamton, Dr. Whittingham worked at ExxonMobil, where his research paved the way for the development of the rechargeable lithium-ion battery. Specifically, he and his team discovered that when lithium ions were held between plates of titanium sulfide, the ions could move back and forth between the positive and negative contacts, creating electricity.
With lithium-ion batteries, “we have gained access to a technical revolution,” said Sara Snogerup Linse, a professor of physical chemistry at Lund University in Sweden who chairs the Nobel committee for the chemistry prize.
an open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, 42 Nobel laureates implored the federal government to "act with the moral clarity required" to tackle the global climate crisis and stop Teck Resources' proposed Frontier tar sands mine.
==
https://www.ecowatch.com/greta-thunberg-nobel-peace-prize-2631637803.html
another young woman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai
Nobel Prize Winners Name Trump and His 'Ignorance' as Top Threats to World Population
:{:{
By Julia Conley
Along with nuclear war and climate change, President Donald Trump has made the list of what Nobel Laureates consider to be major risks to the world population.
In a survey of 50 Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, medicine and economics, more than a third of the respondents said damage to the environment brought about by issues like over-population and climate change, was the biggest threat to mankind. Twenty-three percent said nuclear war was their top concern, while six percent said theirs was "the ignorance of political leaders"—with two of the winners naming Trump specifically.
Peter Agre, winner of the chemistry Prize in 2003, told the Times Higher Education, which conductedthe poll and released the results Thursday, that "Trump could play a villain in a Batman movie—everything he does is wicked or selfish." He also called the president "extraordinarily uninformed."
The survey also found serious concerns among the respondents about the brand of populism pushed by Trump as well as right-wing European leaders. Forty percent of the Nobel winners called Trump-style populism, characterized by his distrust of climate science and the media, and political polarization "a grave threat to scientific progress, while 30 percent say that they are a serious threat."
"Today, facts seem to be questioned by many people who prefer to believe rumors rather than well-established scientific facts," said Jean-Pierre Sauvage, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry last year.
Another laureate added, "it is a disaster when people start believing things that are false and, even worse, when governments induce them to believe facts that are evidently wrong and ignore all evidence-based, scientifically proven data."
The Times Higher Education noted that "Agre is particularly worried by how Trump 'flaunts his ignorance' to appeal to a group of Americans who are happy to dismiss the opinions of scientists."...
}:}: