Gore and Nobel Win: A coup for junk science!

Photos

South Park Gore Lies Parody

see larger image

uploaded by Barry Artiste

• 

  uploaded by Barry Artiste | add comment

• 

  uploaded by Barry Artiste | add comment

• 

  uploaded by Barry Artiste | add comment

Opinion
Barry Artiste, Now Public Contributor

A Coup for non believers, whereby it seems everybody's crackpot theories like the GAYBOMB (Taxpayers paid for this?) can line up for a Nobel Peace Prize along with the serious Environmentalist's, to outrage by some, especially when an Inuit Leader Sheila Watts Cloutier, resident of Iqulait,  a Scientist who actually knows something about her homeland and actually handles test tubes and knows what a sling psychrometer is, only gets a nod, while the Publicity seeking WASP set who read from prepared speeches by academia who seek research funding for more research walks away with the Gold and the Million or so dollars. Something may be rotten in Denmark, but it just aint right in Norway. Perhaps another case of "White makes Right".

While Greenhouse gases are a pressing concern, convienient lies by Gore and his group stating world ocean water levels to rise 20 feet (Greenland is melting) in the near future (It's proving this would happen over a millenia not 50 years) speak volumes on this inaccurate Gore's Global Warming research team. Fossil fuels and their Carbon dioxide sources will be extinct long before that, perhaps in a hundred years. Yet Gore's ManBearPig (SouthPark) and Fred Flintstone and Barney theories abound. Chicken Little and His the "Sky is Falling Theories" are alive and well in Mr. Gore's camp, err I mean Mansion.

While  most research misses the point from people who actually do the monitoring in the frozen tundra instead of armchair environmentalists.  At least Dr. Suzuki gets out of his easy chair once in a while and does actual work. Both scientists with credentials whose boots Gore is not fit to polish.  Inuit communities such as Cloutiers  provide valuable legwork in monitoring and research seem to be passed on by the majority of Environmentalists who would fear to tread in our frozen tundra for fear of getting freezing their "California Sweetbreads off" and lack of Starbuck outlets, preferring to get the environmental news from the relative comfort of their California ranch or University and internet, relying on others to do their work and thereby taking their credit lies and truths combined. 

Granted Cloutier won many awards including the international Sophie Award in 2005,  prestigeous yes, but no Nobel Prize and the accompanying publicity.  Yet, as expected Ms. Cloutier's gracious response on losing to Gore's win was in short "At least  world attention has been  drawn to a pressing concern" regardless who wins.  Of course most remember the Presidential Election where Gore lost out to Bush almost a decade ago whereby Gore's response to the media and Bush was"This is wrong, this is a Fix, I demand a recount"  So you see NOw Public Readers it's "OHH it's like being in a polar opposite universe".

While Environmental Scientists, most who rely and lack government and university research funds from disinterested governments and sponsors are NOW eagerly waving new research proposals lining up hat in hand for much needed research grants, thanks to media worldwide eager for news, publishing fear mongering stories and Gore's latest publicity tours, all the while the same media have published it's detractors.

My Final Thought
My feeling is Gore should have lost and Ms. Cloutier should have won, she has the credentials as an Environmentalist and as well  she practises what she preaches.  Gore on the other hand lives in a house the size of a small town in a third world country.  Now who is spreading an unconvienent truth?

For people who actually want to know about a real behind the scenes environmentalist like Ms. CLoutier go to: http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/hd-watt-cloutier

url="http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=46d1e620-cb1f-4c58-841f-c2acfc7e2023&k=10287"]Gore's 'truth' nets Nobel Prize.

Anyways Please argue, argue amongst yourselves. I won't.

Terence Corcoran, National Post

Published: Saturday, October 13, 2007

Global warming theory has been in political and scientific trouble for some time, but who knew it had sunk so low it needed a boost from the Nobel Peace Prize committee?

Rescuing and rewarding the obscure and the absurd has been a Nobel sideline for some years. The award has gone to half a dozen fringe movements and futile causes (the Gameen bank, Mother Teresa, nuclear disarmament, land mine activists, peace negotiators), ineffectual United Nations agencies and personalities (including KofiAnnan and the UN itself ), occasional warmongers (Yasser Arafat), plus an international assortment of minor and woolly-headed players on the world stage (Wangari Masthai, Jimmy Carter).

Onto this heap of forgotten causes and marginalia the Nobel has just tossed Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN's official climate science group. What a blow the award must be to the IPCC, self-proclaimed home of scientific rigour, to now be lumped in with Reverend Al and his Travelling Snake Oil Road Show and Climate Terror Machine.

If history is any guide here, the IPCC is now doomed to slide into obscurity, joining the list of similarly feted UN agencies that beaver away in relative obscurity and ineffectiveness, their Nobels rotting on shelves: The International Atomic Energy Agency (2005), United Nations peacekeeping forces (1988), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (1981), the International Labour Organization (1969) and the UN Children's Fund (1965).

The first task of the IPCC now, one would think, is to craft a statement disavowing any link with Gore, whose film and book, both titled An Inconvenient Truth, deserved a Nobel for science fiction rather than peace. Not that the IPCC is squeaky clean on the science of climate accuracy. Even the Nobel committee's statement on the IPCC captured the agency's primary role as political shaper of opinion and builder of consensus. IPCC scientific reports have "created an ever-broader informed consensus" about man-made global warming. The Nobel committee said it wanted to "contribute to a sharper focus" on climate change around the world.

Due to the timing of the award, that sharper focus may end up highlighting the gross scientific inaccuracies in Gore's work, thereby making millions of people wonder about the validity of climate science -- and the Nobel -- rather than rush to join its crusading proponents.

Just hours before the Nobel announcement, Gore was busy spinning his way out of a devastating United Kingdom court case that found nine substantial science errors in the film version of An Inconvenient Truth.

The nine errors, listed on Page A19 of this newspaper, are truly major. But Gore's office, in true political form, tried to turn the science disaster into victory, claiming he was "gratified" that the U.K. court had not totally banned distribution of his film in British schools. Instead, it would have to circulate like a package of cigarettes, with a warning label: Children watch this movie at peril of being politically manipulated by Al Gore into thinking what they are watching is true.[/q]