Congratulations to Vice President Al Gore for winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless work on the issue of global climate change. This has been a banner year for Gore, as the Nobel Peace Prize joins an Oscar and an Emmy among the awards Gore has won. As news of his selection as the Nobel Peace Prize winner was released, speculation began anew that Gore may be considering a run for president in 2008, but according to Newsday,
Several Gore advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to share his thinking, said the award will not make it any more likely that he will seek the presidency. If anything, it makes the presidential race less appealing to Gore, they said, because now he has an international platform and may not want to do anything to diminish it.
Predictably, some of the nuttier among the wingnuts have taken issue with Gore’s win, with Patrick from BadgerBlogger saying, “[the] Nobel Foundation has become nothing but a politically correct joke.” Nick Schweitzer’s response was less eloquent and isn’t worth repeating here but you can read it for yourself over at his blog.
I know folks on the right have argued Gore doesn’t deserve to win the NPP for his work on climate change, but I’d argue Al Gore’s been at the forefront of efforts to increase public awareness of the facts of global climate change, and as a result of his efforts, untold numbers of people all across the world have made a conscious effort to reduce their personal negative impact on the environment. Al Gore deserves this award, and I congratulate him for his ceaseless efforts on the issue of global climate change.
Al Gore has parlayed the Global Marshall Plan concept he introduced in his 1992 book into a rapidly evolving economic leviathan, positioned to implement a series of global cap-and-trade indulgences into the world financial markets over the next several years that will likely have Johann Tetzel spinning in his grave.
As I am certain you are aware, in a published opinion of the British High Court, formulated as a result of a claim of “political indoctrination” introduced by a British New Party member against the Education Secretary of the British Government resulting from the showing of Gore’s film in U.K. schools, the court found nine circumstances (initially 11, but several of them were combined) in which Gore’s film presented claims that were, according to the court, “factually inaccurate, misleading, and – in one case – made up”. This disclaimer will have to be read to the children prior to the presentation of this film in British schools any time the film is shown.
There has been no such documented public scrutiny afforded to Gore’s claims here in the States. Mostly just deserved cynicism from disbelievers, whom I’m sure, in your mind, are simply “wing-nuts”. So, I’ll query: If Gore’s crusade has such unquestionable merit, why is there such a strong desire on his part to embellish the data used to make his argument?
Legitimizing his enterprising, personal crusade with Nobel Prize, “Emmy”, and “Oscar” wins has introduced a dangerous level of credibility to an effort that is, at heart, based on profiteering from the creation of fear. That, in my opinion, is every bit as evil as the very real, wanton compromises made to our environment by personal and corporate polluters throughout the world each day. (No one questions that a cleaner world is a better world. That’s not the point.)
That simple-minded individuals like you, aided by the willing media, and the shallow, all-trusting visages-for-hire of the entertainment industry, are not savvy enough to see through this posturing is as troubling for the future of our planet as any model of global climate change, proven or unproven.
Bruce, I’m truly hurt that you consider me to be simple-minded. If you want to see truly simple minds, you need look no further than many of the folks who are some of the most frequent commenters over at BadgerBlogger.
What I find most interesting about Justice Burton’s decision is the statement, “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.” What I find even more interesting is the fact that Justice Burton himself made a few errors in his decision, and I’ll cite an example. In his decision, Burton writes, “In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.”
In truth, Al Gore does not ascribe Katrina to global warming. He follows the scientific consensus in saying that warming will lead to stronger hurricanes. Katrina is used as an example of the damage that stronger hurricanes could do and of the consequences of ignoring warnings from scientists. Further, that’s not the only point on which Burton is wrong; it’s just the only one my simple mind can muster up the energy to write about. If you’d like a little more information on the problems with Burton’s decision, surf on over to Deltoid, where Tim Lambert wrote an excellent entry debunking some of the problems with Burton’s decision.
Interesting… I wonder if Al’s house is green? How about all those plane trips he takes across the country proclaiming “greenery”? Does he believe all the preaching that comes out of his mouth?