Al Gore and the Nobel Prize — One Hopes Not

By October 11, 2007Global Warming

The buzz is that former Vice President Al Gore is a possible recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless work on behalf of poverty and self-abnegation. Unfortunately, the Nobel folks slipped up this week and gave a well-deserved Literature Prize to Doris Lessing, breaking with the usual tradition of recognizing Austrian pornographers or anti-American polemicists. So we’ll pay attention for just a little while longer.

Gore’s claim to intellectual prestige and peace props rests on “An Inconvenient Truth,” his book and alleged documentary on global warming. So we note, again, that the movie is bunk, based on conscious distortions of the truth. The volume of fact-filled rebuttals is huge, but one can start with Marlo Lewis Jr.’s “Al Gore’s Science Fiction: A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth” from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

In England, a judge recently ruled that the documentary is a political document and must be presented as such if it is to be used in schools.

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.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

This post by Iain Murray details the inaccuracies.

The last six months or so have seen a remarkable shift in informed opinion about global warming, documented well at Sen. Jim Inhofe’s blog at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. For example, from August 20: “New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears.” The strength of the push-back comes, in part, out of resentment at having collectivist economics pushed in a worldwide political campaign masked by a shroud of green. A Nobel Peace Prize for Al Gore? That would be just more of the same campaign, and if it happens, it will not pass unchallenged.

UPDATE (6:05 p.m.) Freudeschaden:

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider threw cold water on the rampant speculation, however, in an email exchange with The Fix earlier today.

“The events in California were postponed because of a request to participate in senior level meetings on the climate crisis in Asia,” Kreider said. “However, early Thursday morning these meetings were postponed.” As a result, Gore will resume his planned trip in California today and tomorrow will be a “normal long business day” according to Kreider. On Saturday, Gore is set to return to his home in Nashville.

Join the discussion 4 Comments

  • yonason says:

    As to Gore being awarded the Nobel prize, . . . for what? What has he done other than to raise awareness of a non-issue.

    In Science and Medicine, people have to wait for years to find out if they won, and then only after their work has proven it’s worth. But Gore? What “value” is his work? Even if you aren’t one of those of us who know he’s dead wrong, in your minds he can only be possibly correct because none of the scenarios he has outlined have even happened yet, or even close to happening.

    Of course, this isn’t a science prize. It is, after all just a “peace” prize, whatever the **** that is. I mean, just look who they give it to! Yasser Arafat, for gosh sakes. Where’s the peace there? Thousands dead, and tens of thousands maimed and wounded. The man was one of the most savage murderers of the last century.

    And Al? He may not be a murderer, but he is the biggest con-man of the age. I suppose there should be a prize for that, . . . like at least 10 to 20 making license plates for the state.

  • yonason says:

    Note that Mr. Adams, above, doesn’t deal in any specifics. He only indulges in a scripted diatribe (they all read pretty much alike, with minor variations).

    The fact is, Paul, the Gore nonsense was put on trial and his star witnesses came up short. They had to admit they couldn’t support Gore’s claims, much of his work was grossly exagerated, misleading, and just outright false; and Gore is an idiot. (O.k., I admit I threw in that last one.)

    But still, for Mr. Adams, anyone who criticizes Gore’s flawed work is “anti-gore[sic], right-wing, . . .” and ugly to boot.

    Give them reason, and they respond with irrational anger. So, just why can’t these characters ever come up with a respectful rebutal? (Heck they can even be as disrespectful as they want, just as long as they give me some FACTS to justify their idiotic behavior). But no. It’s just too much trouble to argue rationally, which probably explains why they are so wrong all the time and so nasty when someone brings it to their attention.

    For some fun, see also . . .
    and . . .

    . . . AND ESPECIALLY THIS . . .

    Finally, sometimes the cure is worse than the illness.,2933,299419,00.html
    especially in this case, where there is no illness.

  • lol says:

    lol!!! I love blogs… this one is textbook manipulation of news articles at its finest. 🙂

    Hey bro, maybe you can get a job cleaning the toilet bowls at FOX!

  • Paul Adams says:

    The only disgusting distortion of truth I see here is your anti-gore, right-wing, pro-industrial propaganda. You are going to have to put more lipstick on this pig, because your ugliness belies your contempt. Try harder, mmmkay?

Leave a Reply