It's official: Al Gore and the IPCC win the Nobel Peace Prize

[sparkchaser]

Just to set the record straight for the gullible.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

How dare you ruin our fun!

 

[jncc]

+1. Moreover, recipients such as Gore and Arafat represent the prize's slow descent into irrelevance. It has been co-opted by left-wing politics to serve as a merit badge for those who do the most to advance their agenda.

Was the left wing responsible for awarding the prize to Henry Kissenger?

When MLK won his award racists said "oh so poltical" and commented on how MLK was a rabble rouser who promoted law breaking and so did not deserve the award. Now every reasonable person agrees that equality and the right to vote should not be determined by race.

Perhaps we can say that even in 1965 every reasonable person would have agreed that civil rights was a universal issue and that only the unhinged -- such as writers for the National Review would object to MLK.

So, what will people in 30 years be saying about the National Review's objections today to Gore winning the Nobel Prize?

In any case, here is typical conservative commentary on MLK and the Civil Rights movement from the National Review from 1965:

internal order is now in jeopardy; and it is in jeopardy because of the doings of such high-minded, self-righteous “children of light” as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his associates in the leadership of the “civil rights” movement. If you are looking for those ultimately responsible for the murder, arson, and looting in Los Angeles, look to them: they are the guilty ones, these apostles of “non-violence.”

For years now, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his associates have been deliberately undermining the foundations of internal order in this country. With their rabble-rousing demagoguery, they have been cracking the “cake of custom” that holds us together. With their doctrine of “civil disobedience,” they have been teaching hundreds of thousands of Negroes — particularly the adolescents and the children — that it is perfectly alright to break the law and defy constituted authority if you are a Negro-with-a-grievance; in protest against injustice. And they have done more than talk. They have on occasion after occasion, in almost every part of the country, called out their mobs on the streets, promoted “school strikes,” sit-ins, lie-ins, in explicit violation of the law and in explicit defiance of the public authority. They have taught anarchy and chaos by word and deed — and, no doubt, with the best of intentions — and they have found apt pupils everywhere, with intentions not of the best. Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind. But it is not they alone who reap it, but we as well; the entire nation.

It is worth noting that the worst victims of these high-minded rabble-rousers are not so much the hated whites, but the great mass of the Negro people themselves. The great mass of the Negro people cannot be blamed for the lawlessness and violence in Harlem, Chicago, Los Angeles, or elsewhere. All they want to do is what decent people everywhere want to do: make a living, raise a family, bring up their children as good citizens, with better advantages than they themselves ever had. The “civil rights” movement and the consequent lawlessness has well nigh shattered these hopes; not only because of the physical violence and insecurity, but above all because of the corruption and demoralization of the children, who have been lured away from the steady path of decency and self-government to the more exhilarating road of ‘demonstration’ — and rioting. An old friend of mine from Harlem put it to me after the riots last year: “For more than fifteen years we’ve worked our heads off to make something out of these boys. Now look at them–they’re turning into punks and hoodlums roaming the streets.

Will Herberg, “‘Civil Rights’ and Violence: Who Are the Guilty Ones?”, The National Review Sept. 7th, 1965, pp. 769-770.

via Delong

Did MLK get in the way of civil rights the same way that Gore now gets in the way of preventing global warming?

 

[masonjarjar]

So, what will people in 30 years be saying about the National Review's objections today to Gore winning

You have to push a mile if you want society to move a few feet. MLK knew this and Al Gore knows this. MLK was seen as an extremist. So is Al Gore. We'll probably never see all the changes that the Environmentalists say we need NOW. But, you have to admit, they've got us moving in their direction. It might not be the "mile" they want, but it's definately a few feet here, a few feet there.. those feet add up.

Things won't change over night. But to get the ship moving in the right direction, you have to push early and push hard.

Lee Iacocca said in the most recent Details magazine: "“I used to think Gore was nuts in his worrying about global warming, but he was ahead of his time.”

-Mason

 

[Dr. Mike]

Was the left wing responsible for awarding the prize to Henry Kissenger?

When MLK won his award racists said "oh so poltical" and commented on how MLK was a rabble rouser who promoted law breaking and so did not deserve the award. Now every reasonable person agrees that equality and the right to vote should not be determined by race.

Perhaps we can say that even in 1965 every reasonable person would have agreed that civil rights was a universal issue and that only the unhinged -- such as writers for the National Review would object to MLK.

So, what will people in 30 years be saying about the National Review's objections today to Gore winning the Nobel Prize?

In any case, here is typical conservative commentary on MLK and the Civil Rights movement from the National Review from 1965:



Will Herberg, “‘Civil Rights’ and Violence: Who Are the Guilty Ones?”, The National Review Sept. 7th, 1965, pp. 769-770.

via Delong

Did MLK get in the way of civil rights the same way that Gore now gets in the way of preventing global warming?

Dr. Mike's reasons why Al Gore and MLK are in different categories and should not be compared in this context:
1) MLK suffered for his cause, and walked the walk, not just talked the talk. He went to prison, and ultimately gave his life for his cause. Al Gore can't even fly commercial to help the environment. His house consumes more energy in a month than most average people will in a year.
2) MLK actually contributed to peace, and in the spirit of the Nobel peace prize he improved the fraternity of man. He worked in a non-violent manner to bring change. Al Gore has helped to politicize a scientific issue, and contributed nothing original of his own, but rather repackaged the work of others (and in many cases incorrectly, see my earlier post).
3) While both had their detractors, ultimately MLK, through his methods and taking the moral high road, shamed all his detractors and now most readily acknowledge the incomparable impact he had on society. Al Gore makes inflammatory statements and demonizes those who disagree, thus insuring that there will never be unity on this issue.
4) MLK's work had a definite, direct impact on the general issue of peace. Al Gore's work will only potentially impact on peace, and only if he is right, and there is no way of controlling for all issues to definitively say whether it actually will. As I asked before, if greenhouse gas emissions are lowered even further than scientists say are necessary, and global warming is not only stopped, but actually reversed to bring us to an "ideal" temperature mean, and there is no significant decrease in the amount of conflicts or wars, what would then be the conclusion? Or, what if global warming progressed unabated as it is currently predicted, and conflicts and wars actually decrease, simply because man becomes more capable of solving conflicts in non-violent ways. Would you then draw the conclusion that global warming actually promotes peace?

Kissinger got it because he helped broker the deal that got us out of Vietnam, a war that liberals continue to love to hate. Not because they had gone particularly conservative.
Al Gore is a polarizing figure and making a direct connection between global temperatures and peace is impossible. The fact that every once in a while the Nobel Peace Prize committee can hit the nail on the head does not make it the rule, rather the exception. For every MLK and Mother Theresa, you are more than outweighed by a Yassir Arafat, or a Menchu.

 

[jncc]

Kissinger got it because he helped broker the deal that got us out of Vietnam, a war that liberals continue to love to hate. Not because they had gone particularly conservative.

Kissenger knew the war was unwinnable in 1970 but encouraged Nixon to draw it out becuase of the upcoming 1972 election.

 

[Dr. Mike]

Kissenger knew the war was unwinnable in 1970 but encouraged Nixon to draw it out becuase of the upcoming 1972 election.

Regardless of the reasoning that Kissinger had, that was the reason he won the Nobel. I hardly think that that was a shining star in the Nobel cap, either, as look at what happened to the South Vietnamese as a result of that wonderful "peace" treaty.
Incidentally, have you read that entire piece by Herberg? I am trying to find the whole thing, but your link, and all other sites that cite the article in the same context you have, give only those few paragraphs. I like to read the whole thing for context. I read an an excerpt of a book that discusses this article in a broader context, and it seems to indicate that the purpose of Herberg's piece was theological in nature, that King didn't directly spawn the violence, per se, but Herberg argued that the religious grounds for violating the law were not accurate, and that his ignoring the law, even non-violently, granted rationalization to others. Herberg was, as I have discovered, a contributor on religious issues. I still think his conclusions regarding King were wrong, but it certainly seems that these few paragraphs may potentially be taken out of context to merely make a political point that Republicans are racist and hate liberals, and that is the only reason they don't think Gore should have won this prize. If you come across the full article, I think it would be interesting to see whether the article truly says what people are being told it says.

 

[jncc]

Dr. Mike's reasons why Al Gore and MLK are in different categories and should not be compared in this context:

2) MLK actually contributed to peace, and in the spirit of the Nobel peace prize he improved the fraternity of man.

Conservatives in 1965 (and when it was time to make a national holiday for MLK) didn't think so.

He worked in a non-violent manner to bring change. Al Gore has helped to politicize a scientific issue, and contributed nothing original of his own, but rather repackaged the work of others (and in many cases incorrectly, see my earlier post).

That's exactly what racists in the 60s said about MLK. He politicized an issue, he undermined the cause, the work was done by other people (SNCC, CORE, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters,) Etc. etc. etc.. According to this line MLK wasn't doing the real work. He wasn't put of work during the bus boycott, he wasn't killed trying to register voters in Mississippi, he didn't get beaten up by police sponsored KKK riots during the freedom rides--all he ever did was arrive late on the scene and draw attention to himself for the hard and dangerous work done by other people.

There were as many people in the 50s and 60s who said that MLK did not "walk the walk" as are now saying the same about Gore.

3) While both had their detractors, ultimately MLK, through his methods and taking the moral high road,

Conservatives did not think that MLK took the "high road" They pointed out that he advocated law breaking and civil disobedience. It was no accident that the FBI spent so much time trying to destroy him because he was to conservatives, a danger to "the American way of life."

shamed all his detractors and now most readily acknowledge the incomparable impact he had on society. Al Gore makes inflammatory statements and demonizes those who disagree, thus insuring that there will never be unity on this issue.

What did MLK say about people who thought that voting should be reserved for white people?

Did he say that it was an issue that should be discussed rationally? Do you think he suggested putting the issue to a vote of all (registered) voters?

4) MLK's work had a definite, direct impact on the general issue of peace. ...

Sure, it's easy to say that in retrospect. But conservatives in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and even into the 80s, did not take it as obvious that MLK was obviously a hero. Let's not forget that Ronald Reagan began his 1980 campaign very near Philadelphia, Mississippi by echoing the calls of George Wallace and the KKK for "states rights" (i.e. the right of the states to practice Jim Crow as they pleased without the intervention of the Federal government).

In the 50s and 60s conservatives and "centrists" again and again said that the civil rights movement in general and MLK in particular not only set back the cause of African American equality but also caused strife and violence.

 

[Dr. Mike]

Conservatives in 1965 (and when it was time to make a national holiday for MLK) didn't think so.
That's exactly what racists in the 60s said about MLK. He politicized an issue, he undermined the cause, the work was done by other people (SNCC, CORE, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters,) Etc. etc. etc.. According to this line MLK wasn't doing the real work. He wasn't put of work during the bus boycott, he wasn't killed trying to register voters in Mississippi, he didn't get beaten up by police sponsored KKK riots during the freedom rides--all he ever did was arrive late on the scene and draw attention to himself for the hard and dangerous work done by other people.
There were as many people in the 50s and 60s who said that MLK did not "walk the walk" as are now saying the same about Gore.
Conservatives did not think that MLK took the "high road" They pointed out that he advocated law breaking and civil disobedience. It was no accident that the FBI spent so much time trying to destroy him because he was to conservatives, a danger to "the American way of life."
What did MLK say about people who thought that voting should be reserved for white people?
Did he say that it was an issue that should be discussed rationally? Do you think he suggested putting the issue to a vote of all (registered) voters?
Sure, it's easy to say that in retrospect. But conservatives in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and even into the 80s, did not take it as obvious that MLK was obviously a hero. Let's not forget that Ronald Reagan began his 1980 campaign very near Philadelphia, Mississippi by echoing the calls of George Wallace and the KKK for "states rights" (i.e. the right of the states to practice Jim Crow as they pleased without the intervention of the Federal government).
In the 50s and 60s conservatives and "centrists" again and again said that the civil rights movement in general and MLK in particular not only set back the cause of African American equality but also caused strife and violence.

Okay, where to begin. The issue of the national holiday is not as cut and dry as you make it. How many individuals have their own national holiday in this country? Lincoln and Washington don't even get their own. It gets lumped into President's day. When was the last time you celebrated Columbus day?
MLK did not politicize the issue of civil rights. It was a political issue before he ever stepped into it. If he just wanted people to love one another equally, then it would have been a non-political issue. But they were fighting for equal rights, including political rights. Global warming is a scientific issue that scientists are still researching. It is not an inherently political issue until people make it so. It is not the same.
Need I remind you what administration actually gave the go ahead for the FBI to wiretap King? It was Robert Kennedy who authorized it, and it was because of information that he had been associating with a known communist. So nice try in adding that to your list of grievances against conservatives, but no dice.
To imply that a speech by Reagan on state's rights to launch his presidential bid was a repudiation of the accomplishments of King and a call for the return of segregation is just ridiculous. The issue of state's rights continues today, and in states where there was never a history of segregation. It is an issue, rather, of the central government assuming more powers than were granted to it by the constitution. This includes the issue of abortion, which many conservatives believe should never have been decided by the federal judiciary, but should have been left up to the individual states to decide for themselves. All anybody who every criticizes this speech will quote are the two words "states rights." Here is what he actually said:
"What we have to do is bring back the recognition that the people of this country can solve its problems. I still believe the answer to any problem lies with the people. I believe in state's rights and I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment." Good Lord, he practically lit a cross right there, didn't he, when he talked about people solving their own problems at the community and private level without the federal government taking over! Maybe his sheet was at the laundry that day. Give me a break.
You make many assertions about what conservatives (of which I include myself) did or did not believe about King. But where is your proof? You have two out of context paragraphs from a single article from a single author in National Review. I, in turn, have stated hard evidence about Al Gore that leads me to my conclusion that he does not practice what he preaches. It has been reported that his house consumes more energy in one month than the average person in his town does in a year. When he flies, he flies by private jet, which consumes more fuel and emits more greenhouse gases in one flight than the average American will emit in an entire year from their gas-burning vehicle. A London court found that his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, was either misleading, or factually inaccurate, in 11 instances. The real truth of the matter is that Gore has done nothing but profit off of preaching to others to do what he himself will not. I have given you specific examples of why he is not only not deserving of the peace prize, but also not truly the environmental crusader that his devout followers so wish he were.

 

[analog_kid]

Just to set the record straight for the gullible.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Al Gore said:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

I don't want to get hung up on this, and while I don't have the firmest of grasps on the English language(neither does Al apparently), but from what I get out of that statement, that sure seems to say:"I in some way, had a major role in creating the Internet.".

In other news, I took the initiative in creating a BBS face this morning.

 

[Dr. Mike]

I don't want to get hung up on this, and while I don't have the firmest of grasps on the English language(neither does Al apparently), but from what I get out of that statement, that sure seems to say:"I in some way, had a major role in creating the Internet.".

In other news, I took the initiative in creating a BBS face this morning.

I, myself, took the initiative to get out of bed this morning! Quite an accomplishment for a Monday morning (although the allure of trying out my newest shaving product can be a great incentive!).

 

[jazzman]

Global warming is a scientific issue that scientists are still researching. It is not an inherently political issue until people make it so.

Not really. It's not a scientific "issue" among scientists with relevant backgrounds who are not being paid by energy companies or phony organizations supported by them. Even Bill O'Reilly had something positive to say about the award on Leno on Friday night. Al Gore has been pushing this issue for decades, so he deserves credit for educating the public. That's what the award is for.

 

[ScottS]

I don't want to get hung up on this, and while I don't have the firmest of grasps on the English language(neither does Al apparently), but from what I get out of that statement, that sure seems to say:"I in some way, had a major role in creating the Internet.".

Indeed- he sponsored legislation to fund a project that took the internet, rescued it from the Ivory Tower, and made it available to consumers. I confess, I've been using the internet since about 1984, and had no clue as to the economic potential that existed. It took some foresight to see that, and whoever offered Gore the advise deserves much credit, as does Gore, for taking the advise.

 

[jncc]

Need I remind you what administration actually gave the go ahead for the FBI to wiretap King? It was Robert Kennedy who authorized it, and it was because of information that he had been associating with a known communist.

Just my point. Now it is easy for everyone to laud MLK. It was not so simple 30 or 40 years ago.

During the cold war much opposition to civil rights was drumed up by racists on the common charge that those who called for equality were communists. And it was also the case that during the 1930s and 1940s communist party was supportive of civil rights.

Also, yes, even northern democrats were not supportive of civil rights--for a long, long time. And then when MLK called for economic rights and came out against the vietnam war the Democratic party was really not happy with him

My point was not about the right wing or Republicans, but about conservatives -- in the sense of people who want to "conserve" / retain the status quo. JFK and RFK were among these. They and the National Review wanted MLK to go away.

This is why I wrote that it is easy NOW to see MLK as a hero. When he won the Nobel it was not so simple -- particularly because he already come out against the Vietnam war.

To imply that a speech by Reagan on state's rights to launch his presidential bid was a repudiation of the accomplishments of King and a call for the return of segregation is just ridiculous.

Point 4 of the State's Right's party platform:

- 4 -

We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.

"State's rights" meant much, much more than thinking that communities are the best place to solve problems.

It was consistently the way that segregationists talked about their own "freedom" to do what they wanted. The name "State's Rights" for the party was no accident.

If a Democrat made a speech about believing in the virtues "free choice" and the importance of allowing individuals to make choices free from government influence -- that would have nothing to do with abortion, right? What if that democrat made that speech in the lobby of a NARAL office--still no connection to abortion, correct? The word "abortion" was never mentioned so the speech had nothing to do with abortion, right?

I didn't say that Reagan was a member of the KKK. I was just suggesting that he knew how to get their votes.

 

[Dr. Mike]

Not really. It's not a scientific "issue" among scientists with relevant backgrounds who are not being paid by energy companies or phony organizations supported by them. Even Bill O'Reilly had something positive to say about the award on Leno on Friday night. Al Gore has been pushing this issue for decades, so he deserves credit for educating the public. That's what the award is for.

Alright, for the sake of argument, we will assume that man-made global warming is truth and has been definitively proven by science. I still contest Al Gore's winning of this prize on two grounds. First, it is not an issue of world peace. Any association between global climate and the level of conflicts and war would be circumstantial at best.
My other issue is so what that he has been pushing the issue. Many more important people have been working their hearts out to provide the evidence that he has then simply taken to generate quite a lucrative career in politics, entertainment, and now global acclaim. And all of it at no cost to himself. He doesn't practice what he preaches. In my world, if you go around getting paid (big bucks) telling people that what they are doing is horrible and will be the death of us all, and then you don't actually follow your own teachings, that equals hypocrite, not Nobel-worthy.
Put it this way. I go around and preach to the world that slavery is bad, and earn international acclaim, bring the issue into the spotlight more than anybody else ever has, produce an award-winning documentary on the subject, promote a world-wide concert to end slavery, and all along the way earn myself an enormous amount of money, and you then discover that I, myself, am a slave owner, how will you view and remember me? Will you applaud my efforts to raise awareness on this important issue and grant me the Nobel peace prize, or will you chastise me as a hypocrite who has made himself rich for exploiting an issue?

 

[Holton181]

Put it this way. I go around and preach to the world that slavery is bad, and earn international acclaim, bring the issue into the spotlight more than anybody else ever has, produce an award-winning documentary on the subject, promote a world-wide concert to end slavery, and all along the way earn myself an enormous amount of money, and you then discover that I, myself, am a slave owner, how will you view and remember me? Will you applaud my efforts to raise awareness on this important issue and grant me the Nobel peace prize, or will you chastise me as a hypocrite who has made himself rich for exploiting an issue?

Hmm.. That's interesting to me. We know now MLK wasn't the best figure for the job, but he did a good job of keeping his skeletons in the closet. He, in spite of his personal demons, became an international figurehead for the fight for civil liberties in America, not Malcom X, not Bobby Seale. He wasn't a slave owner, of course, but he wasn't God Reborn like some made him out to be at the time. He deserved the Nobel.

I won't argue about Gore, but if all he does is bring an issue to the forefront enough to make change, that's enough to earn some sort of accreditation, right?

 

[Dr. Mike]

Point 4 of the State's Right's party platform:

- 4 -

We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.

"State's rights" meant much, much more than thinking that communities are the best place to solve problems.

It was consistently the way that segregationists talked about their own "freedom" to do what they wanted. The name "State's Rights" for the party was no accident.

If a Democrat made a speech about believing in the virtues "free choice" and the importance of allowing individuals to make choices free from government influence -- that would have nothing to do with abortion, right? What if that democrat made that speech in the lobby of a NARAL office--still no connection to abortion, correct? The word "abortion" was never mentioned so the speech had nothing to do with abortion, right?

I didn't say that Reagan was a member of the KKK. I was just suggesting that he knew how to get their votes.

If by State's Rights party you are referring to the Dixiecrats, this was a short-lived political party that, to my knowledge, Reagan was never associated with. This was their view of what state's rights meant. That didn't mean this was what everybody understood state's rights to mean.
I don't think that Reagan was making some veiled comment about segregation. Let's put things into context here. Reagan staunchly believed that the federal government had overstepped its bounds in many areas of society. He constantly repeated his belief that the government, in many instances, had become the problem. This was one of his major talking points wherever he went, not just in the South.
Now, I know that the spin put on it was that this was an attempt to appeal to Southerners (who, judging by this stereotype, are, have been, and forever will be, ardent segregationists) to steal votes away from the Democrats. But it is also well known that the label of racist is one that is consistently being used by Democrats to demagogue Republicans for any number of issues, including the War on Drugs, building more prisons, and not favoring racial quotas. Because political pundits declared that it was a racist statement does not make it so. Reagan going to the South and talking about his belief in taking more power out of the hands of the federal government and returning it to the states is not tantamount to promoting segregation and questioning the legitimacy of King's Nobel peace prize.

 

[Dr. Mike]

Hmm.. That's interesting to me. We know now MLK wasn't the best figure for the job, but he did a good job of keeping his skeletons in the closet. He, in spite of his personal demons, became an international figurehead for the fight for civil liberties in America, not Malcom X, not Bobby Seale. He wasn't a slave owner, of course, but he wasn't God Reborn like some made him out to be at the time. He deserved the Nobel.

I won't argue about Gore, but if all he does is bring an issue to the forefront enough to make change, that's enough to earn some sort of accreditation, right?

It's not an argument on whether you need to be perfect. There would be no award if that was the requirement. My point is that, simply because you raise attention around an issue doesn't mean you should be given an award.
For crying out loud, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan have certainly brought much attention to the issue of abusing drugs. Should we give them an award? Charles Manson raised awareness of the Beatles' White Album.
I know that Al Gore is viewed by many as being the leader of this movement. But if you talk to the actual scientists, you get a different picture than what he paints. He works in hyperbole. Scientists talk of rising water levels and receding coasts in terms of centimeters. Al Gore talks in terms of feet. Al Gore tells you that the ice on Kilimanjaro is receding from global warming. Scientists tell you it is from changes in solar radiation, and global warming has no impact. Al Gore is to the global warming movement what televangelists are to Christianity. Both will exploit an important and emotional issue and exaggerate, and both don't mind making a buck while they are at it, and occasionally they get caught in their hypocrisy. Jim Baker will not go down in history being remembered along with such notables as Peter, Augustine, or Mother Theresa. So why does Al Gore get afforded such acclaim?

 

[scorpion]

In the last few days when this has come up I've seen a few folks linking to the posts from a British high court that contains 'errors' from the film. Those posts with the cherry-picked list neglected to mention that the court ultimately ruled that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate" and dismissed the suit.

Don't you think that it's intellectually dishonest to omit that bit of information? Unless your only interest is in being partisan, why omit that crucial bit of information from your own source? It's absurd... you obviously respect the judge as a source if you cite his findings... but don't even mention his eventual ruling... or his ultimate opinion on the film.

Also, has anyone mentioned that Gore Splits the prize with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?

 

[Dr. Mike]

In the last few days when this has come up I've seen a few folks linking to the posts from a British high court that contains 'errors' from the film. Those posts with the cherry-picked list neglected to mention that the court ultimately ruled that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate" and dismissed the suit.

Don't you think that it's intellectually dishonest to omit that bit of information? Unless your only interest is in being partisan, why omit that crucial bit of information from your own source?

Also, has anyone mentioned that Gore Splits the prize with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?

It was broadly accurate. Okay. And? It still has errors. Gore claimed in his film that global warming will result in sea levels rising by 6 meters in the next 100 years. That is 600 centimeters, roughly 18 feet. The IPCC, his co-winner, in its report, stated the rise would be between 10 and 60 cm, but most likely 30 cm. 30 cm is roughly 1 foot. He took the upper extreme and added a couple of zeros. Global warming has not caused the melting of the snow cap on Kilimanjaro. The type of melting that has occurred is the result of fluctuations in solar radiation, and despite the warming trend, temperatures at the ice level have not increased above freezing. Again, going back to my comparing Gore to a televangelist. A televangelist is broadly accurate about Christian beliefs and principles. But they often times introduce exaggeration, and are often doing it for profit. Gore has made millions of dollars, and he never apologizes, or even attempts to correct, for errors that he has disseminated. Where was his statement retracting the assertion that 1998 was the hottest day in U.S. history when the data was shown to be false and corrected by his own source? Or when the data in his film is not even in agreement with the official report by the IPCC? He is a charlatan who is in it for the money, and it has been incredibly lucrative.

 

[Scotto]

Not to belabor the point, but this is interesting reading:
http://sitewave.net/news/MaryEllenGilder.htm

Goes to show you that even the barest amount of digging will give you scads of scientific evidence to help you make your own decisions regarding the "facts".