If we rely on past trends, there's sure to be some catastrophe ahead. Some readers may recall the ruckus that ensued earlier this year when I revealed I am impatient with, and unimpressed by, the alarmism that lately passes for environmental science. To anyone who subscribes to the "Inconvenient" version of climatology, my views are equivalent to despoiling all of nature for my personal profit. Or so the e-mail response indicated.

Awarding a "peace" prize on the basis of such hysteria doesn't change the strength of those arguments, but it does debase the notion of peace just a bit further than humanity manages to do on most days.

In my view, the Nobel Institute cannot do much to restore its own reputation, after years of using their soapbox to celebrate fatuousness — or even worse —  and thereby enabling much that is truly dangerous to the future of the world and its people. But, they could begin such an effort by returning to a more truthful understanding of what "peace" is. The opinion writers at the Wall Street Journal  have offered an admirable list of ideas that might get them started.