Terence Corcoron concludes:
Peter Foster agrees and says that Gore’s and IPCC’s work have nothing to do with ‘peace’:
Global warming theory has been in political and scientific trouble for some time, but who knew it had sunk so low it needed a boost from the Nobel Peace Prize committee?Update: Mark Steyn's contribution.
Mr. Gore is by no means an anomaly when it comes to Peace Prizewinners being peddlers of nonsense, tellers of whoppers, or even promoters of political strife.
... the prize was awarded to Mr. Gore and the IPCC "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." But what does that have to do with peace?
[...]
... Al Gore's and the IPCC's idea of a good cause involves -- as with Mr. Strong -- demonization of Western lifestyles and promoting the belief that, until we change, we deserve to be attacked morally, and perhaps even physically. It's a funny basis for a Peace Prize.
The prize has elevated junk science, gross exaggeration and outright misrepresentation to high international stature, the most prestigious award in the world, discrediting all who work honestly to find the facts and do the right thing.
It depends. If global warming is later "proven" somehow conclusively, Gore may be reveled as a visionary. If it comes to pass that it was all hype, he will be considered an alarmist. The Nobel Prize is an offer of hope for peace that brings humanity together in a global effort to stop a problem which concerns us all. Then again, it didn't work with Mr.Arafat.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately Gore is widely revered now as a visionary - in spite of his 'error' filled crockumentary. Given the large uncertainties in climate science should it turn out that Gore was right about anything it will be purely coincidental. Something like that stopped clock being right twice a day.
ReplyDelete