Does the Nobel Peace Prize REALLY Mean a Damn Thing Anymore?


Nobel Prize
n.

Any of the six international prizes awarded annually by the Nobel Foundation for outstanding achievements in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and economics and for the promotion of world peace. [Emphasis mine]

And:

Nobel Prize

Any of the prizes awarded annually by four institutions (three Swedish and one Norwegian) from a fund established under the will of Alfred B. Nobel. The will specified that awards should be given “to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.” Since 1901, prizes have been awarded for physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace; since 1969, a sixth prize, established by the Bank of Sweden, has been awarded in economic sciences. The Nobel Prizes are regarded as the most prestigious prizes in the world.

After Al Gore won his Academy award for his schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” and the buzzing first started about the possibility of him winning the Nobel, anyone with any brains knew it was a foregone conclusion. That’s NOT meant as a compliment.

Then he won the Emmy.

And, of course, now the Nobel.

The man is a whiner of the first order–first with his bawling about the 2000 elections and his ORDERING a Florida official to BREAK THE RULES in the vote counting, rules well established in that state’s constitution. It took the Supreme 9 to shut him the hell up and we’re still hearing how Bush “stole” the election.

Then his quavery voice on his latest Chicken Little “The Sky is Falling” crusade.

Trouble is, his film is not scientifically credible. Global warming is not the catastrophic, impending doom he would like us to believe and what he has scare-mongered the weak minded into thinking, including Hollywood and anyone on the left. Of course, he has stooped to the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” when any credible scientist has questioned his disaster of a movie, screaming the right has “bought them off”.

Too bad he couldn’t buy off the British government and court system. A british court ruled his movie represents “partisan political views” and requires a school disclaimer before being shown in schools.

From PRNewswire:

“Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, represents ‘partisan political views’ and must be treated as such by teachers in British schools, a British High Court judge has indicated.

“The British court was swayed by numerous factual inaccuraciesportrayed in the movie.

Read the rest of the article here.

So, this year we have a whining loser from a presidential election
resorting to scare tactics to get some attention who has won an
Oscar, an Emmy and now the Nobel. Which leads to my question--
keeping in mind the definitions that led off this post and
looking at past Laureates, does this prize really mean a damn
anymore or has it become simply a political popularity contest?

Let's look at some of the previous winners
(from Nobel Peace Prize Winners 2007-1901):
1901:
Jean Henri Dunan (Founder of the International Committee of
the Red Cross, Geneva; Initiator of the Geneva Convention
(Convention de Genève)
Frederic Pass (Founder and President of the first French peace
society)

1906:
Theodore Roosevel (President of the United States of America.
Drew up the 1905 peace treaty between Russia and Japan)

1912:
Elihu Root (
Former Secretary of State. Initiator of several
arbitration agreements)

1917:
International Committee of the Red Cross.

1919:
Thomas Woodrow Wilson (President of the United States of America.
Founder of the Société des Nations (League of Nations)

1925:
Sir Austen Chamberlain (Foreign Minister. Negotiator of the
Locarno Treaty)
Charles Gates Dawes (Vice-President of the United States of America.
Chairman of the Allied Reparation Commission. Originator of
the Dawes Plan.)

1952:
Albert Schweitzer (Missionary surgeon, Founder Lambaréné
Hospital in République du Gabon.)

1953:
George Catlett Marshall (General, President American Red Cross,
ex-Secretary of State and of Defense, Delegate to the U.N.,
Originator of the Marshall Plan.)

1958:
Georges Henri Pire (Belgium, Father of the Dominican Order,
Leader of the relief organization for refugees, l'Europe du Coeur
au Service du Monde.)

1962:
Linus Carl Pauling (California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA. Campaigner especially for an end to nuclear weapons
tests.)

1964:
Martin Luther King, Jr (leader of the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference, campaigner for civil rights.)

1975:
Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov (Soviet nuclear physicist.
Campaigner for human rights.)

1979:
Mother Teresa (India, Leader of the Order of the Missionaries of
Charity.)

1983:
Lech Walesa (Poland. Founder of Solidarity, campaigner for
human rights.)

1986:
Elie Wiesel (U.S.A., Chairman of 'The President's Commission on the
Holocaust'. Author, humanitarian.)

EVERY ONE OF THE ABOVE WINNERS HAD SOMETHING TO
OFFER THE WORLD.
EVERY ONE of the above were true examples of
the definition of the
Nobel Prize Laureates
.

It becomes more political here:
1973:
HENRY A. KISSINGER , Secretary of State, State Department,
Washington.
LE DUC THO , Democratic Republic of Viet Nam.
(Declined the prize.)
for jointly negotiating the Vietnam peace accord in 1973.

1977:
Amnesty International (London, Great Britain. A worldwide
organization for the protection of the rights of prisoners
of conscience.

1978:
Mohamed Anwar al-Sadat (President of the Arab Republic of
Egypt.)
Menachem Begin (Prime Minister of Israel.)
for jointly negotiating peace between Egypt and Israel.

1990:
Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbechev (President of the USSR, helped to
bring the Cold War to an end.) What about Reagan, Pope John
Paul II and Margaret Thatcher???


1994:
Yasser Arafat (Chairman of the Executive Committee of the
PLO, President of the Palestinian National Authority.)
Shimon Peres (Foreign Minister of Israel.)
Yitzhak Rabin (Prime Minister of Israel.)
for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East.

2001:
United Nations (New York, NY, USA)
Kofi Anna (United Nations Secretary General)

2002:
James Earl Carter, Jr. (former President of the United States
of America, for his decades of untiring effort to find
peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance
democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social
development
)

These "laureates" are a rogue's gallery of simple political panderers.
Arafat? Gorbachev? Carter? Now, Gore.

Sadly, the Nobel is nothing more than a politically partisan,
completely anti-American popularity contest.

Gore no more deserves the Nobel for his scaremongering
pseudo-science than Arafat (terrorism), Kofi Annan and
Carter did.

Sad commentary on what was once a very "Nobel" idea.

Catch the Wave!

Advertisements

Does the Nobel Peace Prize REALLY Mean a Damn Thing Anymore?


Nobel Prize
n.

Any of the six international prizes awarded annually by the Nobel Foundation for outstanding achievements in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and economics and for the promotion of world peace. [Emphasis mine]

And:

Nobel Prize

Any of the prizes awarded annually by four institutions (three Swedish and one Norwegian) from a fund established under the will of Alfred B. Nobel. The will specified that awards should be given “to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.” Since 1901, prizes have been awarded for physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace; since 1969, a sixth prize, established by the Bank of Sweden, has been awarded in economic sciences. The Nobel Prizes are regarded as the most prestigious prizes in the world.

After Al Gore won his Academy award for his schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” and the buzzing first started about the possibility of him winning the Nobel, anyone with any brains knew it was a foregone conclusion. That’s NOT meant as a compliment.

Then he won the Emmy.

And, of course, now the Nobel.

The man is a whiner of the first order–first with his bawling about the 2000 elections and his ORDERING a Florida official to BREAK THE RULES in the vote counting, rules well established in that state’s constitution. It took the Supreme 9 to shut him the hell up and we’re still hearing how Bush “stole” the election.

Then his quavery voice on his latest Chicken Little “The Sky is Falling” crusade.

Trouble is, his film is not scientifically credible. Global warming is not the catastrophic, impending doom he would like us to believe and what he has scare-mongered the weak minded into thinking, including Hollywood and anyone on the left. Of course, he has stooped to the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” when any credible scientist has questioned his disaster of a movie, screaming the right has “bought them off”.

Too bad he couldn’t buy off the British government and court system. A british court ruled his movie represents “partisan political views” and requires a school disclaimer before being shown in schools.

From PRNewswire:

“Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, represents ‘partisan political views’ and must be treated as such by teachers in British schools, a British High Court judge has indicated.

“The British court was swayed by numerous factual inaccuraciesportrayed in the movie.

Read the rest of the article here.

So, this year we have a whining loser from a presidential election
resorting to scare tactics to get some attention who has won an
Oscar, an Emmy and now the Nobel. Which leads to my question--
keeping in mind the definitions that led off this post and
looking at past Laureates, does this prize really mean a damn
anymore or has it become simply a political popularity contest?

Let's look at some of the previous winners
(from Nobel Peace Prize Winners 2007-1901):
1901:
Jean Henri Dunan (Founder of the International Committee of
the Red Cross, Geneva; Initiator of the Geneva Convention
(Convention de Genève)
Frederic Pass (Founder and President of the first French peace
society)

1906:
Theodore Roosevel (President of the United States of America.
Drew up the 1905 peace treaty between Russia and Japan)

1912:
Elihu Root (
Former Secretary of State. Initiator of several
arbitration agreements)

1917:
International Committee of the Red Cross.

1919:
Thomas Woodrow Wilson (President of the United States of America.
Founder of the Société des Nations (League of Nations)

1925:
Sir Austen Chamberlain (Foreign Minister. Negotiator of the
Locarno Treaty)
Charles Gates Dawes (Vice-President of the United States of America.
Chairman of the Allied Reparation Commission. Originator of
the Dawes Plan.)

1952:
Albert Schweitzer (Missionary surgeon, Founder Lambaréné
Hospital in République du Gabon.)

1953:
George Catlett Marshall (General, President American Red Cross,
ex-Secretary of State and of Defense, Delegate to the U.N.,
Originator of the Marshall Plan.)

1958:
Georges Henri Pire (Belgium, Father of the Dominican Order,
Leader of the relief organization for refugees, l'Europe du Coeur
au Service du Monde.)

1962:
Linus Carl Pauling (California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA. Campaigner especially for an end to nuclear weapons
tests.)

1964:
Martin Luther King, Jr (leader of the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference, campaigner for civil rights.)

1975:
Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov (Soviet nuclear physicist.
Campaigner for human rights.)

1979:
Mother Teresa (India, Leader of the Order of the Missionaries of
Charity.)

1983:
Lech Walesa (Poland. Founder of Solidarity, campaigner for
human rights.)

1986:
Elie Wiesel (U.S.A., Chairman of 'The President's Commission on the
Holocaust'. Author, humanitarian.)

EVERY ONE OF THE ABOVE WINNERS HAD SOMETHING TO
OFFER THE WORLD.
EVERY ONE of the above were true examples of
the definition of the
Nobel Prize Laureates
.

It becomes more political here:
1973:
HENRY A. KISSINGER , Secretary of State, State Department,
Washington.
LE DUC THO , Democratic Republic of Viet Nam.
(Declined the prize.)
for jointly negotiating the Vietnam peace accord in 1973.

1977:
Amnesty International (London, Great Britain. A worldwide
organization for the protection of the rights of prisoners
of conscience.

1978:
Mohamed Anwar al-Sadat (President of the Arab Republic of
Egypt.)
Menachem Begin (Prime Minister of Israel.)
for jointly negotiating peace between Egypt and Israel.

1990:
Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbechev (President of the USSR, helped to
bring the Cold War to an end.) What about Reagan, Pope John
Paul II and Margaret Thatcher???


1994:
Yasser Arafat (Chairman of the Executive Committee of the
PLO, President of the Palestinian National Authority.)
Shimon Peres (Foreign Minister of Israel.)
Yitzhak Rabin (Prime Minister of Israel.)
for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East.

2001:
United Nations (New York, NY, USA)
Kofi Anna (United Nations Secretary General)

2002:
James Earl Carter, Jr. (former President of the United States
of America, for his decades of untiring effort to find
peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance
democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social
development
)

These "laureates" are a rogue's gallery of simple political panderers.
Arafat? Gorbachev? Carter? Now, Gore.

Sadly, the Nobel is nothing more than a politically partisan,
completely anti-American popularity contest.

Gore no more deserves the Nobel for his scaremongering
pseudo-science than Arafat (terrorism), Kofi Annan and
Carter did.

Sad commentary on what was once a very "Nobel" idea.

Catch the Wave!

Gore Lied And Millions Laughed


Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit whose home uses up more electrons in a month than most will use in their lifetimes.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit who flies around in a GV and gets picked up by a motorcade of stretch limos…and none of them use propane for fuel.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit that screamed that GWB played on our fears (read emotions) and scared us into war now scares the world into believing the sky is falling.

Algore: We Have Ten Years Left Before Earth Cooks (requires El Rushbo 24/7 member access) 1/27/06

RUSH: Try this one from yesterday’s stack. I don’t know if you people know this or not, but Al Gore has been out at the Sundance Film Festival out there in Park City, Utah. This is one of Robert Redford’s big do’s, and apparently Al Gore is working on a movie that — what is the name of this movie? Oh, that’s right, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and the movie will document his efforts to raise alarm on the effects of global warming, and so he brought Tipper and the kids out there.

He’s attending parties and posing for pictures with his fans. He’s enjoying macaroni and cheese at the Discovery Channel’s soirée. He’s palling around with Laurie David of Curb Your Enthusiasm, who is the husband of Larry David, who drives the Prius and then flies the GV. Larry David says, “You know, Al is a funny guy, but he’s also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”

Now, the last time I heard some liberal talk about “ten years” it was 1988, Ted Danson. We had ten years to save the oceans; we were all going to pay the consequences, which would result in our death. Now Al Gore says we’ve got ten years. Ten years left to save the planet from a scorching. Okay, we’re going to start counting. This is January 27th, 2006. We will begin the count, ladies and gentlemen. This is just… You have to love these people — from afar, and from a purely observational point of view.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit that eats more food in a day than a starving kid in Ethiopia will eat in its lifetime.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit the would be President.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit whose Global Global Warming Concerts were the very epitome of Double Standards and were quite the flop.
Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit whose movie entitled An Inconvenient Truth is actually a convenient lie.

Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

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.

The inaccuracies are:

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming.

The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.

The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming.

The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming.

The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice.

It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age; the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching.

The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously.

The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting; the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people.

In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.

The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Imagine that.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit that once upon a time said he wasn’t running for President in 2008.

Yes, Al Boy, we are laughing at YOU!

cross post by Snooper

Gore Lied And Millions Laughed


Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit whose home uses up more electrons in a month than most will use in their lifetimes.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit who flies around in a GV and gets picked up by a motorcade of stretch limos…and none of them use propane for fuel.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit that screamed that GWB played on our fears (read emotions) and scared us into war now scares the world into believing the sky is falling.

Algore: We Have Ten Years Left Before Earth Cooks (requires El Rushbo 24/7 member access) 1/27/06

RUSH: Try this one from yesterday’s stack. I don’t know if you people know this or not, but Al Gore has been out at the Sundance Film Festival out there in Park City, Utah. This is one of Robert Redford’s big do’s, and apparently Al Gore is working on a movie that — what is the name of this movie? Oh, that’s right, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and the movie will document his efforts to raise alarm on the effects of global warming, and so he brought Tipper and the kids out there.

He’s attending parties and posing for pictures with his fans. He’s enjoying macaroni and cheese at the Discovery Channel’s soirée. He’s palling around with Laurie David of Curb Your Enthusiasm, who is the husband of Larry David, who drives the Prius and then flies the GV. Larry David says, “You know, Al is a funny guy, but he’s also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”

Now, the last time I heard some liberal talk about “ten years” it was 1988, Ted Danson. We had ten years to save the oceans; we were all going to pay the consequences, which would result in our death. Now Al Gore says we’ve got ten years. Ten years left to save the planet from a scorching. Okay, we’re going to start counting. This is January 27th, 2006. We will begin the count, ladies and gentlemen. This is just… You have to love these people — from afar, and from a purely observational point of view.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit that eats more food in a day than a starving kid in Ethiopia will eat in its lifetime.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit the would be President.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit whose Global Global Warming Concerts were the very epitome of Double Standards and were quite the flop.
Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit whose movie entitled An Inconvenient Truth is actually a convenient lie.

Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

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.

The inaccuracies are:

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming.

The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.

The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming.

The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming.

The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice.

It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age; the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching.

The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously.

The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting; the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people.

In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.

The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Imagine that.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit that once upon a time said he wasn’t running for President in 2008.

Yes, Al Boy, we are laughing at YOU!

cross post by Snooper

Gore Lied And Millions Laughed


Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit whose home uses up more electrons in a month than most will use in their lifetimes.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit who flies around in a GV and gets picked up by a motorcade of stretch limos…and none of them use propane for fuel.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit that screamed that GWB played on our fears (read emotions) and scared us into war now scares the world into believing the sky is falling.

Algore: We Have Ten Years Left Before Earth Cooks (requires El Rushbo 24/7 member access) 1/27/06

RUSH: Try this one from yesterday’s stack. I don’t know if you people know this or not, but Al Gore has been out at the Sundance Film Festival out there in Park City, Utah. This is one of Robert Redford’s big do’s, and apparently Al Gore is working on a movie that — what is the name of this movie? Oh, that’s right, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and the movie will document his efforts to raise alarm on the effects of global warming, and so he brought Tipper and the kids out there.

He’s attending parties and posing for pictures with his fans. He’s enjoying macaroni and cheese at the Discovery Channel’s soirée. He’s palling around with Laurie David of Curb Your Enthusiasm, who is the husband of Larry David, who drives the Prius and then flies the GV. Larry David says, “You know, Al is a funny guy, but he’s also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”

Now, the last time I heard some liberal talk about “ten years” it was 1988, Ted Danson. We had ten years to save the oceans; we were all going to pay the consequences, which would result in our death. Now Al Gore says we’ve got ten years. Ten years left to save the planet from a scorching. Okay, we’re going to start counting. This is January 27th, 2006. We will begin the count, ladies and gentlemen. This is just… You have to love these people — from afar, and from a purely observational point of view.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit that eats more food in a day than a starving kid in Ethiopia will eat in its lifetime.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit the would be President.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit whose Global Global Warming Concerts were the very epitome of Double Standards and were quite the flop.
Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit whose movie entitled An Inconvenient Truth is actually a convenient lie.

Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

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.

The inaccuracies are:

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming.

The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.

The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming.

The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming.

The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice.

It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age; the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching.

The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously.

The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting; the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people.

In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.

The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Imagine that.

Global Warming. The Myth. The Man. The Double Standard Twit that once upon a time said he wasn’t running for President in 2008.

Yes, Al Boy, we are laughing at YOU!

cross post by Snooper

Global Warming…or is it Whining?

Ref: Global Warming

You know I never heard of “carbon footprint” until “BIG AL” either invented it or discovered it.

Well…I had to put it aside for awhile and think about it.

Oh…I thought about Mount St. Helen and all that “carbon” she spewed forth from the bowels of the earth.

And, Oh…what ever happened to all that carbon anyway…huh? What happened to it? It was so natural…”whatin it”?

And…I still contemplate it each night before I go to bed. For, you see, each night before going to bed, I go out by the pool and look at the stars; the falling stars that is!

Well ya’all see, I mus be a gettin dummer… I was always believun ma school mom (great teacha she was!) when she told us uns about dem der ‘fallin starrs’.

Mrs. Sledge, dats ma school mom, she says dem der are not starrs, dem just rocks or what day call ‘meter-oar-rights’ and dem rocks are a going so damn fast day just burn up…crazy huh, dem rocks burning!

We’ll ma friend Bubba asks Mrs Sledge, “What happen to dem rocks wen day burn up?

Mrs. Sledge says, “All them rocks just burn up and turn into a basic substance called ‘carbon’.”

And I asks, “What happin to all dat der carbon?”

“Well,” she replies, “I think it just deposits one big ‘carbon footprint’.”

If you agree with my ‘carbon footprint’ story, pass it on

Thanks Norm!

Global Warming…or is it Whining?

Ref: Global Warming

You know I never heard of “carbon footprint” until “BIG AL” either invented it or discovered it.

Well…I had to put it aside for awhile and think about it.

Oh…I thought about Mount St. Helen and all that “carbon” she spewed forth from the bowels of the earth.

And, Oh…what ever happened to all that carbon anyway…huh? What happened to it? It was so natural…”whatin it”?

And…I still contemplate it each night before I go to bed. For, you see, each night before going to bed, I go out by the pool and look at the stars; the falling stars that is!

Well ya’all see, I mus be a gettin dummer… I was always believun ma school mom (great teacha she was!) when she told us uns about dem der ‘fallin starrs’.

Mrs. Sledge, dats ma school mom, she says dem der are not starrs, dem just rocks or what day call ‘meter-oar-rights’ and dem rocks are a going so damn fast day just burn up…crazy huh, dem rocks burning!

We’ll ma friend Bubba asks Mrs Sledge, “What happen to dem rocks wen day burn up?

Mrs. Sledge says, “All them rocks just burn up and turn into a basic substance called ‘carbon’.”

And I asks, “What happin to all dat der carbon?”

“Well,” she replies, “I think it just deposits one big ‘carbon footprint’.”

If you agree with my ‘carbon footprint’ story, pass it on

Thanks Norm!