Nobel Prize ignores inconvenient untruths to reward Gore

THERE is a beautiful congruency about Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize 24 hours after a High Court judge had declared it illegal to screen his 'man-made' climate change propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth in schools, unless accompanied by contradictory information to correct its scientific falsehoods. The judge identified nine scientific errors that would mislead pupils.

It takes more than nine inconvenient untruths, however, to deflect the Nobel Peace Prize committee from its political purpose. For aficionados of irony, last week was a deeply satisfying experience. To see the humbugs of the Nobel committee embracing the charlatan Gore to endorse his falsification of reality in what has become, globally, the flagship politically correct cause was as morally illuminating as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

{gallery}gore{/gallery}

Scotland on Sunday
October 14 2007
GERALD WARNER

THERE is a beautiful congruency about Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize 24 hours after a High Court judge had declared it illegal to screen his 'man-made' climate change propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth in schools, unless accompanied by contradictory information to correct its scientific falsehoods. The judge identified nine scientific errors that would mislead pupils.

It takes more than nine inconvenient untruths, however, to deflect the Nobel Peace Prize committee from its political purpose. For aficionados of irony, last week was a deeply satisfying experience. To see the humbugs of the Nobel committee embracing the charlatan Gore to endorse his falsification of reality in what has become, globally, the flagship politically correct cause was as morally illuminating as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

So-called anthropogenic climate change has nothing to do with science and everything to do with political control of mass populations. In this edifying work, the primary instrument is the lie. That is why, in deference to the Orwellian principle, the word "truth" has been conscripted to propagate one of the great untruths of our time. If you doubt for one moment that global warming is a political, rather than a scientific, phenomenon, ask yourself why a failed American presidential candidate is leading the charge. Tony Blair must be beside himself to see this role already spoken for.

The Nobel charade has long been one of the best comic turns on the planet. Hypocrisy was built into its origins. Albert Nobel spent the last decade of his life developing weapons technology: cannon, progressive powder and rockets. If not actually the father, he was at least the grandfather of the V1 and the great-grandfather of the ICBM. Yet he is remembered for his Peace Prize. That is administered by a Norwegian committee - the other four Nobel prizes are awarded in Sweden.

The ethos is the same. The day before Gore was awarded his prize, the literary equivalent was given by the Swedes to Doris Lessing, who ticks all the boxes on the progressive clipboard. To win a Nobel prize you need impeccable liberal credentials. Do not look to become a laureate if you have voiced any inconvenient truths that infringe the canons of political correctness. Yet even by the standards of Nobel, this buffoon represents an imposture too far. Gore was discredited even before the diploma was awarded.

The nine falsehoods in his film identified by the judge were: Gore's assertion that the sea level would rise 20 feet "in the near future"; that low-lying Pacific atolls have already been evacuated; that the Gulf Stream will shut down; that graphs showing a correlation between an increase in CO2 and a temperature rise over 650,000 years were "an exact fit"; that the disappearance of snow from Mount Kilimanjaro was due to man-made climate change; that the drying up of Lake Chad is due to global warming; that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming; that polar bears were drowning "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice"; and that coral reefs were bleaching as a consequence of global warming.

The almost incredibly flimsy arguments adduced by Gore in support of what the judge denounced as "alarmist" allegations were illustrated by the fact that the total count of polar bear fatalities was four and they turned out to have been drowned by a storm. The core ice samples featured in the film actually showed that increased CO2 emissions have historically followed 800 years after periods of warming, rather than preceding them. There is no other instance of any significant scientific theory becoming orthodoxy in the face of so many flaws and contradictions as those that discredit the man-made global warming scam.

Of course, global warming is occurring - it always has, interspersed with compensatory periods of cooling. Already the UN-controlled Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the Nobel Prize with Gore, has taken the precaution of unobtrusively revising its 2001 prediction of sea level rises downwards by 52.7%, to preserve a minimal scientific credibility.

Science, in any case, is peripheral to the grand peur being generated around supposedly man-made climate change. This is politics, showbiz and big money. The politics is about social control. Climate hysteria is the new religion, to the extent that some extremists even prate of 'Gaia', the earth goddess - reminiscent of the last resurgence of paganism in Europe, when Robespierre enthroned a prostitute on the altar of Notre Dame as the Goddess of Reason.

More materially, there are the green taxes: a dripping roast for politicians and state control freaks. Yet the profits will by no means be confined to governments. Climate hysteria is big business and nobody knows this better than Al Gore. He has used the climate issue to reinvent and enrich himself. This is the fantasist who 'invented' the internet (in competition with the late Kim Il-Sung, the North Korean fruitcake) and who claims that Erich Segal's sugary Love Story was based on himself and his wife Tipper, despite the fact that she, unlike the Ali MacGraw character, is still robustly with us. Can you not hear Blair grinding his teeth in envy?

He has other grounds for envy. Gore claims in his film that he has given his climate presentation 1,000 times. Since his speaking fee is $100,000, that would suggest he has made $100m from such appearances alone. His documentary asks Americans to conserve electricity in the home. To his embarrassment, a locally-based think tank, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, claimed that last year his household consumed nearly 221,000 kWh - more than 20 times the national average - and that the combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006 was almost $30,000.

Gore boasts that every time he boards an aircraft he buys a carbon offset. That is the most morally repugnant aspect of the climate fascists' programme, whereby African dictators confiscate their subjects' light bulbs, return them to tallow candle power and bank the proceeds in Switzerland. Is there a Nobel Prize for Hypocrisy?

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1641212007