Why didn't Raymond Damadian win a Nobel Prize?

Who is Raymond Damadian?  Well, if you've ever had an MRI, you can thank Raymond Damadian. He's one of the people who came up with the ideas behind it.

The chief thing that he contributed to the history of the MRI was the idea that the hydrogen in water, which is very prevalent in cancer cells, reacts differently to magnetic resonance.
(Don't understand what magnetic resonance is? Awesome.  Most people wouldn't/don't.  You can go here for a primer. Its an online version of a book sponsored by a European MRI group.)

 The realization that cancer would react differently to magnetic resonance gave life to a lot of different ideas that led to the modern MRI.
So much so, that Raymond himself created one of the first machines:

Nonetheless, Field Focusing Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (FONAR) was the method used when he captured headlines in 1977, publishing the first image of a chest cavity of a live man. Initially, he had volunteered his own body for the job—without success. His associates told him he was too fat, recalls Dr Damadian. Indeed, “Indomitable”, which is what he called his machine, preferred Dr Minkoff's skinny torso. On July 3rd 1977, after four hours and 45 minutes of collecting data from 106 points, a picture was created.

So with that in mind, you'd think that Raymond would get a good portion of the credit by the Nobel committee.
You'd be wrong.

No I'm not religious.  I'm not even close to religious. But Raymond is... and he's a creationist. Which might explain why the Nobel committee snubbed him.  Even though his contribution to MRI was so important that GE had to pay him $130 million for patent infringements, along with a host of other companies paying him undisclosed sums.

The Nobel committee should be ashamed.

Nobel winner quits Physics group over Global Warming

The headline kinda says it all.

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

What I like about Ivar Giaever's letter is that he addresses the real problem of how this issue is debated. Global Warming data is taken as incontrovertible evidence, when it is anything but.

From his letter:

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973

PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.