Not because Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his "efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for fighting it..." but because the committee that chose him has ignored all the evidence to the contrary concerning Gores contentions about Global Warming. A British court has determined there are eleven lies within the body of "An Inconvenient Truth," the film for which Gore won an Academy Award. Any showing of this film in a school setting in Britain, must be prefaced with these eleven factual "inconsistencies."
The Nobel Peace Prize has officially lost credibility.
Update: Friday, 1:50 pm
Since I first encountered the "Eleven Inaccuracies" the British Court has since reduced that number to nine. Here is the relevant text, in full, from Britain's The New Party:
Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
This article was first produced following an interim judgement of the High Court, since which time the full judgement has been given. In his full judgement the Judge listed nine inaccuracies rather than the 11 from the interim judgement - two appear to have been grouped together and another omitted. In the interests of clarity we have accordingly revised the details below.
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
- The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
- The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
- The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
- The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
- The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
- The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
- The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
- The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
- The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
The point being, too many people have bought into this fabrication of Gore's, and at least one government has decided that school children must not be indoctrinated by what the British court feels is an obvious political advertisement, without first being warned of the inaccuracies or outright lies it contained therein.
Update: Friday, 7:50 pm -- [Choosing to answer Dan's second and third comments here rather in comments]
"...it would be prudent - conservative - to change our policies to be more sound from a sustainability point of view."
And I don't disagree. The fossil-fuel engine needs to go the way of the dinosaur... get it!?... but my problem with An Inconvenient Truth is the fact that it is very one-sided... inconveniently one-sided; i.e., one man's interpretation of 'the evidence' which more learned men than Gore have interpreted differently. My problem with 'man-made' global warming is the simple honest truth that we don't know enough to say ANY of Gore's conclusions are even in the ballpark of reality.... but perhaps that's a bit harsh.
So let's be prudent. Let's work to move away from fossil fuels, which would have the added bonus of defunding oil-rich nations that use their oil to hold the rest of the world economic/financial hostages. Let's clean up the pollution-heavy industrial sector, and work to alleviate the need for more and more landfills. Let's seek to harness the wind and the ocean as sources of energy... but let's NOT get all gah-gah over the end of the world, as Gore sees it. Let's not go crazy over what's beginning to look an awful lot like a religious cult.
Another simple truth is Gore has managed to put together a very frightening 'documentary'-- I put that in quotes because the facts he puts forth are hardly conclusive. Everyone fawns over Gore like he's the environmental messiah, taking his conclusions as the Gospel truth, while ignoring all other evidence to the contrary.
While I personally do not care for the man, my beef with him and his Academy Award winning 'documentary' has nothing to do with any personal dislike and everything do with the hysteria his 'junk-science' documentary has spawned. And the very fact that he won a Peace prize for this is ridiculous... why not a Nobel prize in science? That's what he's peddling isn't it? Science?
So. While I'm all for 'saving the environment,' I am NOT AT ALL for saving it because Al Gore insists we have less than 10 years to turn the looming ship of Environmental Disaster around before it's simply too late. Save it because it's prudent, but don't try to get me to believe polar bears will drown, or Greenland will thaw if we don't. Both of these will happen even if we do! What!? Polar Bears never drowned when temperatures were AlGorically Ideal? Spare us all a little intellectual credit here. Besides which, why do you think it was called Greenland in the first place?
Because it was a rich, "green" land; perfect for farming... or so Norse explorers thought when they encountered it.
So. Before we buy into this Man-Made Global Warming mumbo-jumbo how about getting some perspective from the other camp?
How about checking out some of the writings of Dr. Roy Spenser?
His bio:
Dr. Roy Spenser is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change.
Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.
His most recent article: A Report from the Global Warming Battlefield
And another from June of last year:
The Real News About Mann-Made Global Warming
More articles from Dr. Spenser can be found here.
Here also is an article from Bjorn Lomborg at the Washington Post who is neither a die-hard supporter, nor denier of man-made global warming.
To wrap all this up, there is simply no reason to get all hysterical about Global Warming, and or the eventual arrival of Kevin Costner's Water World. Nothing wrong with being prudent-- translate that to "Good Stewards." But there is definitely something wrong with teaching An Inconvenient Truth to school Children as scientific fact, when it is not. Britain seems to have been able to pull its head out of the gobbledy-gook that so permeates the debate and insist that students who view the film in a classroom setting be told of factual 'inconsistencies' contained within Al Gores political propaganda piece masquerading as a Documentary.
The point is, because of all the inconvenient truths about Gore's Inconvenient Truth, the Nobel Peace Prize is wasted, and loses it's validity as a genuine award to the Peace Makers of the world. Sowing hysteria cannot hardly be compared to sowing peace. And I must therefore seriously question the process by which winners of Nobel Prizes are determined.
And Gore is not the first example of a questionable awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. Disqualified after the fact-- in my mind --there was Betty Williams, Nobel laureate of 1976, who last year said before an auditorium filled with schoolchildren...
"Right now, I would love to kill George Bush."
Perhaps she should be asked to return the prize. There should, after all, be a certain measure of responsibility attached to such prizes... like Olympic gold medals...
And then there's the disastrous awarding of a Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat.
The point is, Gore winning the prize only further tarnishes what was once an honest and noble award.
But no more.
Update: Sunday, 4:45 pm
This is too good to pass up:Posted in Comments at Dan's place, Eleutheros addresses a statement made by Michael Westmoreland-White...
"The other 1/2 of the Prize went to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the thousands of scientists around the world who toiled to bring about the consensus reports. Nothing junk about THEIR science."
That's right! How can thousands of scientists simultaneously be wrong.
OK, there's the criticism, might as well get it out in the open, that the "thousands" of scientist were bits and quips from thousands of papers and reports written by those scientists and the IPCC went cherry picking through the data much as Dan does the Bible and a great many of those scientists remonstrated that they said no such thing and came to no such conclusions.
Even at that, just look at the heavy guns the Panel has in its camp. Scientists who unequivocally said climate change was due to human activity. I mean just look at the top people on that list!
Dr. Nir Shaviv - Israel
Dr. Chris de Freitas - Universty of Auckland, NZ.
Dr. Claude Allegre - France
Dr. Bruno Wiskel - University of Alberta
Dr. David Evans - Australia
Dr. Tad Murty - Canadia Fisheries
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy Durham university
Meteorolgist Dr. Reid Bryson, University of Wisconsin
Economist E. J. Labohm
Dick Thoenes chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society.
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa.
Just how are these, the most knowledgeable and informed climate scientists in the world ALL wrong about the human cause of climate change??
Wait .... ah .... it seems EVERY ONE of these scientists have recanted their position. ALL of the now say they were mistaken about the human causes of climate change with many of them calling it hype and bogus.
And for good reason. Since the original hype scientists have considered such as the following:
Temperature recording devices that were once in outlying and rural areas were taken over by urban sprawl and the data they collect is tainted.
The ice caps on Mars are receding at about the same rate as they are on Earth, due, as they now conclude, to solar activity.
As the glaciers have retreated in the Alps, they revealed silver mines with the tools neatly stacked where the miners had intended to return in the spring, but the advancing glacier in prehistory had covered it until now.
The extant navigational rutters describing how to sail from Norway to Greenland used a northern rout with land navigation points from 1000 to about 1200. After that the route was more southernly and used ice features as navigational points.
And the growing list goes on and on. In the sober light of day a very great many of the scientists that first signed onto the man-made global warming hype have recanted based on better information and evidence to the contrary.
Disclaimer:
[I think it only fair to say that Eleutheros is one of those bloggers I find intellectually intimidating-- to mean, I do not consider myself on equal intellectual par with the man. There are a few others out there who also fall into this category. His politics occasionally clash with mine, but that doesn't negate his ability to intelligently and rationally debate the issues.]
19 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Who would you put forward for the Nobel Prize?
It is a shame that our presidential candidates have been so quiet on these issues. Energy independence and environmental issues have to be dealt with NOW. We can't wait any longer and expect there not to be violence as a result.
I hate to sound uninformed - and this is no affront to Ms Winfrey - but what has she done for world peace?
Individual acts of charity such as you're citing with Winfrey are fine, as far as they go. They certainly help the individuals assisted. Perhaps in the hundreds of individuals.
But wise policy changes that lead to a more peaceful world can lead to saving thousands or even millions of lives.
Apparently the Nobel people were convinced enough that Gore's educational efforts were along this line than Winfrey's individual acts of charity.
While charity is fine, ideally, we ought to be working for justice over charity. Living sustainably is, it seems to me, a matter of justice and, as a result, peace.
There's a difference.
The point that I drew from the film was that we don't know what the results of our actions are, but there's a chance we're negatively effecting the climate. We DO know as a matter of fact that human activity causes harm to the environment and there are studies that suggest that we're causing change to the climate as well with unknown - but possibly quite serious - consequences.
That being the case, this film suggested to THIS viewer that it would be prudent - conservative - to change our policies to be more sound from a sustainability point of view.
Well, it was a political film designed to rally support for prudence in our policies. Why would one who is trying to rally support offer the minority opinion of scientists?
And you know, don't you, that Team Bush and many Republicans in office acknowledge the likelihood of human impact on global warming?
It was the case that there was political disagreement on global warming from most Republicans in office. Then they agreed to that reality, but disagreed that there was any evidence that humans had a hand in it. Now, they agree that humans likely had an impact, but are disagreeing about mandating changes, preferring to let the free market magically make changes.
Gore (who I personally don't care much for anymore) has done a good job of contributing to effecting political change that has the potential for making our world a more peaceful place. And I'm guessing that's why the Nobel folk gave him their prize.
In who's twisted mind is Al Gore more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than her?
Rush Limbaugh was nominatated, too. And yes, I believe even he is more deserving of the peace prize than Al Gore.
Oh, and another receipient of The Nobel Peace Prize was Koffi (food for oilscam) Annan. Gore is in great company, don't you agree?
I won't lie and say my objections to Gore's win is completely unsullied in this respect; I despise Gore as a public figure since his attempted theft of the presidency in 2000, but the reality of it is, as you and I have both pointed out, there were far more deserving nominees than Gore, Limbaugh, OR Oprah, and yet the committee chose to waste a Peace Prize on Politically Motivated Propaganda, rather than on any REAL effort to save lives or affect peace among nations and peoples.
Thanks for stopping by.
What happens if nothing happens? When Gore is gone the way of all flesh, he'll be praised in eulogy for his efforts to save a planet that didn't need saving.
------------
OH! And a comment over at Dan's place was just too rich to pass up. I've added it in full as another update to this post.
As to your question, if we prudently change our ways to be more sustainable and it turns out that it wasn't necessary, well, no big deal. It just means that we weren't as overconsumptive.
It's sort of like that old argument for becoming a Christian. What's the harm?
What's the harm in being conservative when it comes to environmental policy? We make a little less money? Consume a little less?
Even if Gore and the panel of scientists are wrong in their caution, then we've only encouragesd responsible behavior anyway and being less wastful and consumptive. There's nothing to lose in behaving conservatively, but perhaps a little money.
So, would I apologize for asking people to live more responsibly and with less consumerism if it turned out I was wrong about the environmental reasons for doing so? No. There are many logical, moral reasons for doing so aside from environmental reasons.
Now, you? Will you apologize tearfully if it turns out you were wrong?
But you sure danced neatly around the apology you refuse to offer. Bravo, Mister Trabue.
You think I should apologize for that?
Come now, brother. You agree with me that we ought to live prudently, responsibly. We should be on the same side on this issue.
Yellow card. Since EL cherry picks, too. As do I.
Actually, it's necessary, since to synthesize all the disparate messages in the Bible as if if it's saying one thing is to miss the point of any of 'em.
Anyway. Yellow card: tangent.
Carry on.
Eleutheros said that...not I