Former Vice President Al Gore how has a Nobel Peace Prize to go along with his Oscar for his efforts to advance the cause of global warming by misstating data and frankly lying about its effects. At least that's the conclusion of a British court that had to rule on whether schools in the UK could use Gore's documentary as a teaching tool:
The judge said that, for instance, Gore's script implies that Greenland or West Antarctica might melt in the near future, creating a sea level rise of up to 20 feet that would cause devastation from San Francisco to the Netherlands to Bangladesh. The judge called this "distinctly alarmist" and said the consensus view is that, if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, "but only after, and over, millennia."
Burton also said Gore contends that inhabitants of low-lying Pacific atolls have had to evacuate to New Zealand because of global warming. "But there is no such evidence of any such evacuation," the judge said.
Another error, according to the judge, is that Gore says "a new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find ice." Burton said that perhaps in the future polar bears will drown "by regression of pack-ice" but that the only study found on drowned polar bears attributed four deaths to a storm.
Judge Michael Burton essentially endorsed the film for use, but only with the caveat that An Inconvenient Truth was not a science film, but a political film. In fact, it's propaganda. Scientists, even those who support the anthropomorphic climate change theory, have pointed out the same "nine errors" and more ever since the film's release. Gore's supporters shrug this off, apparently comfortable with flat-out untruths in pursuit of their political goals.
For a group which hands out prestigious awards in scientific fields, one might think that the Nobel Committee might want to maintain its credibility on real science. It might also consider what this has to do with "peace". The Nobel committee has moved far afield from its original mandate to honor those who actually work to avoid armed conflict or to end it and have simply decided to use their award to promote a distinct political agenda.
Who else could have won the Nobel prize, if the committee wanted to promote peace and freedom rather than political allies? Well, perhaps they may have considered the hundreds, if ot thousands of monks in Burma who just sacrificed their lives in the pursuit of non-violent regime change. One or more of the people involved in the six-nation talks that has avoided war over North Korea's nuclear-weapons programs would have also seemed a more germane choice.
Those choices would have actually focused on real efforts to bring peace and freedom to millions of people. That's what I thought the Nobel Peace Prize meant to honor. Instead, they chose to honor a hysteric with a polemic on meteorology. And why? Do you suppose the Nobel committee wants Al Gore to try a different job in the near future, and hopes to boost his chances to get it?