So Gore by advancing the global warming agenda is actually helping to promote world peace.
Hey, if it works for the committee, it works for us.
What doesn�t work is the fact the film for which Gore won the prize, �An Inconvenient Truth,� is riven with alarmist exaggerations and inaccuracies. The day before the Nobel was announced, a British High Court justice ruled that the film included significant errors, according to the Times of London.
Courier EditorialsGore's Nobel
Environmentalist filmmaker Al Gore is this year�s winner of the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize, which he shares with the U.N.�s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.So how does the Nobel committee get �peace� out of �global warming�? It has to do with the precautionary principle, or what might happen if we fail to take steps to halt climate change. If the worst-case global warming scenarios actually happen they could bring about social upheaval, which could increase the �danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states,� the committee said.
So Gore by advancing the global warming agenda is actually helping to promote world peace.
Hey, if it works for the committee, it works for us.
What doesn�t work is the fact the film for which Gore won the prize, �An Inconvenient Truth,� is riven with alarmist exaggerations and inaccuracies. The day before the Nobel was announced, a British High Court justice ruled that the film included significant errors, according to the Times of London.
The justice determined that the film was �broadly accurate� in teaching that climate change is mainly due to man-made greenhouse gases -- but that the �apocalyptic vision� it presented was politically partisan. He said the film could be shown in British schools but only when accompanied with new �guidance notes� for teachers to provide balance.
The film�s errors include exaggerating the potential for devastation if the sea level rises due to melting ice caps. Gore�s claim that sea levels could rise 20 feet was �distinctly alarmist,� the judge ruled, and �not in line with scientific consensus.�
There was �no evidence� for Gore�s claim that Pacific atolls had been evacuated. There was no direct link between global warming and Hurricane Katrina, the drying out of Lake Chad or the melting of the snows of Kilimanjaro. There was no proof that polar bears were drowning as ice floes melted either. And coral bleaching has not been proven to result from global warming, he said.
Perhaps most significantly, the justice cited as an overstatement Gore�s �exact fit� of graphs of CO2 levels and temperature changes over the last 650,000 years. Other scientists have pointed out that the CO2 increases lag those of warming by about 800 years, suggesting that higher levels of CO2 are caused by warmer temperatures, not the other way around.
With these errors and others, including some that contradict the IPCC, how did the Nobel committee rationalize its way into picking Gore to share the prize? The facts may be wrong but the politics are right -- and that�s what seems to matter.
For sure it�s politics that are driving today�s popular proposed solutions to global warming: going �carbon neutral� or �carbon negative,� shrinking your carbon footprint, buying carbon offsets, etc. These measures will have no measurable effect on global warming.
The world would do better to follow the advice offered by Bjorn Lomborg, Swedish author of �The Skeptical Environmentalist,� in an article last week in the Washington Post. He advocates more research and development of low-carbon energy. Even spending $25 billion a year on this R&D would be seven times cheaper than the Kyoto Protocol, he says, which climate models show would slow global warming by a mere seven days by 2100. It would also stimulate the global economy instead of hurting it.
But back to Al Gore and his Nobel. We don�t know about world peace, but there may be some marginal environmental benefits if he uses his half of the $1.5 million prize to �greenify� his energy hog mansion near Nashville.