The big buzz in the news today is whether or not The Goracle will be the winner of the once-prestigious-but-now-just-a-joke Nobel Peace prize. CNN reports:
“An Inconvenient Truth,” a documentary featuring the former vice president captured two Academy Awards in February. The film focuses on Gore and his worldwide travels to educate the public about the severity of global warming.
Last month Gore picked up an Emmy — the highest award in television — for “Current TV,” which he co-created. The show describes itself as a global television network that gives its viewers the opportunity to create and influence its programming.
On Friday, Gore finds out if he’s the winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.
Although the secretive five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee does not disclose names of its award nominees, it’s been widely reported that Gore is up for the prize.
In February, a Norwegian lawmaker announced he had nominated Gore for the prestigious honor. Gore is in contention thanks to his worldwide campaign to bring attention to the dangers of global warming.
Bookies are predicting that the Goracle will win.
There’s speculation that a win would fuel a Gore ‘08 run for president:
But the possibility that former Vice President Al Gore might take the prize has some Gore supporters buzzing that the 2000 Democratic Party nominee for president might be convinced to take the plunge once again.
Gore and Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who were jointly nominated for the prize for their work on climate change, have been identified as likely winners by Nobel handicappers. If they win, Gore supporters say, it could spur the former vice president to make a late entry into the presidential race.
“Winning a Nobel Peace Prize is a life changing event,” said Dylan Malone, who runs a Web site called AlGore.org, which advocates a Gore presidential run. “If he wins (the Nobel), he will undoubtedly reassess the situation and think, ‘Where do I go next?’ He’s done the slideshow, made the movie, won every accolade that our society has to give. There’s nowhere else to go to take it to the next level in my mind.”
Gore supporters are so excited about the possiblity that their “prophet” might win the Nobel Peace prize that they’ve stepped up their attempts to draft him to run for president:
On Wednesday, the Web site Draft Gore paid for a full-page open letter to Gore in the New York Times. “You say you have fallen out of love with politics, and you have every reason to feel that way,” reads the letter. “But we know you have not fallen out of love with your country. And your country needs you now — as do your party and the planet you are fighting so hard to save.”
The ad said that 136,000 people have signed a petition asking Gore to run for president.
There is one less-than-shiny note for Al Gore this week: A High Court judge in the UK ruled yesterday that there were 9 scientific errors in Gore’s award-winning crockumentary An Inconvenient Truth:
A High Court judge today ruled that An Inconvenient Truth can be distributed to every school in the country but only if it comes with a note explaining nine scientific errors in Al Gore’s Oscar-winning film.
The Government had pledged to send thousands of copies of the film to schools across the country, but a Kent father challenged that policy saying it would “brainwash” children.
A judge was asked to adjudicate between Stewart Dimmock and the Department of Children, Schools and Families. Mr Justice Burton ruled that the film could be sent to schools, but only if it was accompanied by new guidlines to balance the former US vice-president’s “one-sided” views
The judge said some of the errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming.
He said that while the film was dramatic and highly professional, it formed part the ex-politician’s global crusade on climate change and not all the claims were supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus.
The errors are listed at that link.
The Times Online’s environment reporter Lewis Smith writes about the ruling here.
So tomorrow morning you may wake up to the nauseating news that the “prophet” has won the Nobel Peace prize. Shortly thereafter, you should make sure to turn on and leave on every light in your house, use at least one roll of toilet paper in the bathroom before you leave the house (in honor of Sheryl Crow), opt for use of aerosol cans of air freshener, deodorant and hair spray, fill up your SUV with premium-grade gasoline and take the long route to the airport, where you are to fly cross country on a jumbo jet, and have a huge steak or chicken dinner complete with all the gluttonous trimmings upon arrival to your destination.
After all, isn’t that what Al Gore would do?
“Why’s that girl always pickin’ on me?”
More: Dymphna at the Gates of Vienna blog delivers a must-read smackdown on Gore here.
| Email This Post | Print This |
From the FoxNews story…
Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC.”
In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
Comment by Dan @ 10/11/2007 - 12:18 pm
It’s going to KILL Bill Clinton if Gore gets an NPP before he does.
But of course Gore will win and his win will be just like Jimmy Carter’s more about Bush than about Gore.
Comment by Lizzy @ 10/11/2007 - 12:38 pm
“Why’s that girl always pickin’ on me?”
Because it’s soooooo easy to pick on Algore Goracle.
Comment by steveegg @ 10/11/2007 - 12:41 pm
Dan, too bad for global warming alarmists that that didn’t keep the judge from ruling that the film was politically partisan and didn’t need to be shown without a fact sheet accompanying it, eh? The judge is clear that if schools are going to educate about global warming, that it must be a balanced education, something Al Gore, on the other hand, does not favor.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 10/11/2007 - 12:42 pm
I read that Al Gore has attended over a thousand lectures on this crusade to end man-made global warming; burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel and premium gasoline to tell the gullible of the earth that they must give up any aspiration to improve their humble existence by living the ALGORE life style. Conservation of energy is like taxes; it’s for the “little people”!
Comment by Tom TB @ 10/11/2007 - 1:17 pm
That evil Al Gore!
I hate him so much for going around the world, trying to tell people about impending ecological disaster.
Obviously he’s part of the liberal-commie-fascist global conspiracy to prevent conservative profit!
Obviously he has led most of the scientists in the world to only support one wrong conclusion because of his lust for money and power!
Al Gore’s plan:
1. Get everyone hyped up over global warming
2. ?
3. Profit!
You conservatives are brilliant! You’ve uncovered Al Gore diabolical scheme!
Now if someone could tell me what step 2 was, this would all make a lot more sense.
Comment by ME @ 10/11/2007 - 1:19 pm
Commenter Dan — You missed the point where Mr. Justice Michael Burton awarded nearly $200,000 in fees to the complainant, a clear and unmistakable clue as to the winner and loser in the case.
Commenter ME — Gore doesn’t love money nearly as much as he loves power and acclaim. That he can and is making a few bucks off of his celebrity is frosting on his cake. That he is deliberately lying on at least one of his points, the relationship between CO2 and temperature increases, is beyond refute, as the judge pointed out. Since that relationship is absolutely key to the rest of his argument, the fallacy brings into question all else he says on the subject.
Comment by Bob Leibowitz @ 10/11/2007 - 1:43 pm
Bob’s absolutely right. Justice Burton found that the scientific evidence was that increases in the CO2 levels trailed temperature increases by periods of several hundred years. Therefore, the rational, scientific hypothesis might be that the warming causes the increase in carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.
Now this doesn’t prove that warmer temperatures lead to elevations of CO2 levels, but it definitely disproves the converse, which is what Goracle’s entire flim-flam routine depends on.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 10/11/2007 - 2:09 pm
Eh, he can garner all the Edwards votes when Silky drops out of the race due to the Hillary! planted rumors involving extramarital relations (true or not). That would piss Hill off.
Comment by Dan Collins @ 10/11/2007 - 2:56 pm
Indeed, perhaps if the messiah would stop jetsetting around the world in his private jet using twice as much energy than the average U.S. citizen, it might be easier to take him more serious. If he’s so concerned about the impending “ecological disaster”, as you put it, perhaps he could lead by example. Doubtful….
Goracle’s flock of sheep will continue to follow him in a zombie like daze, threatening to destroy anyone who dares to question him.
To wit: ME
Comment by NC Cop @ 10/11/2007 - 3:42 pm
The Nobel is a joke. If Gore wins it that merely sinks the Prize even further into the Leftist mire in which it has been sinking.
Comment by benning @ 10/11/2007 - 3:49 pm
The Nobels for the hard sciences, physics, chemistry, math, biology, etc. are still serious awards and highlight some excellent work by innovative scientists. The political Nobels for Peace and such have degenerated into a baseless, corrupt, unaccountable popularity contest for the looney leftists and pro-Marxists of the world. It’s like the Nobel Peace Prize has become the Academy Award for the UN crowd. It’s basically become the Nobel Anti-United States award.
But, if Gore gets it he’ll just be beside himself with glee, the man exhibits all of the negative traits of a person suffering from full blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but the really sad thing is how many thoughtless and easily led sheeple mindlessly sign up to worship at the Goracle’s First Temple Of Global Warming.
Comment by Severian @ 10/11/2007 - 4:08 pm
Yeah, I wish the Nobel Peace Prize wasn’t given out until people are like 80 and their whole legacy is clearly visible. Otherwise you end up with people who seem good at the time…
Comment by alchemist @ 10/11/2007 - 4:27 pm
Or people like Yassir Arafat, who didn’t seem good even at the time.
Comment by Severian @ 10/11/2007 - 5:06 pm
Obviously Gore has produced an advocacy film that is so one-sided that no “vast majority” of scientists support his claims—that is a media huffpuffery worthy of Stalin or Hitler’s BIG LIE agit-prop techniques.
Gore won’t debate because he simply can’t refute most of the arguments against his one-sided movie.
It should only be shown in school with a warning label: This film is harmful to logical minds who base their conclusions on facts.
The oafs and imbeciles in Oslo keep dumbing down their brand until soon the Peace Prize will be just another politically fungible chit.
Comment by daveinboca @ 10/11/2007 - 5:07 pm
Do you actually really care whether Gore enters the race or not?
Comment by eddie @ 10/11/2007 - 6:20 pm
It’s amazing that people will actually pay to see propaganda films like this.
When the children in public schools in the U.S. or the U.K. are shown the film,
1) Are they forced to watch it?
2) Do the schools have to pay for it?
3) Does Al Gore gain monetarily?
Comment by G-Monster @ 10/11/2007 - 6:45 pm
Yes Eddie I care if he gets in. That fool knows no shame and is totally blinded by those who worship his fat carbon buttprint. If he gets in he will become a laughingstock and really screw with the democrat nominating process.
Hopefully he will be the one to lead the hypocritical socialist greedbags to a well deserved slaughter. I just love a two-time lefty loser.
Bring it on!
Comment by CZ @ 10/11/2007 - 8:52 pm
Now let me get this straight: some danged fool washed-up politician decides to make global warming his issue, produces a film of dubious accuracy on the topic, and is up for a peace prize? What on earth does inveighing against global warming have to do with world peace?
Maybe it’s just me, but I’d say that those monks in Burma have already contributed more to the cause of world peace than this overstuffed, pompous fool of a former Vice President.
But I’m sure he’ll get the prize. After all, they just awarded the prize for literature to Doris Lessing, who’s been churning out unreadable novels since practically forever, because it was her turn, dammit.
As for the idiotic notion that Gore could ride the Nobel Prize to the presidential nomination, all I can say is I hope he tries. If he does, Hillary Clinton will impale him to the side of a barn, and we can all enjoy the hissing sound as the gasbag deflates.
Comment by Leslie @ 10/11/2007 - 9:40 pm
Sister> Well, that’s as may be. I’m just pointing out that if we’re going to all say “Ah hah!” based on the judge pointing out things that are incorrect and use that as proof Gore and Global Warming are frauds, it should also be pointed out that the judge agreed with the film’s (and Gore’s) general points.
If we accept one as proof based on a judge, don’t we kind of have to accept the other? Or are we cherry picking from the ruling here to suit our own pre-determined views? From the original posting, it doesn’t look like you believe that Global Warming exists or that man has an impact at all, but I may just be misunderstanding.
Comment by Dan @ 10/12/2007 - 8:52 am
Oh and I think incidentally that it would be a disaster for Gore to enter the Prez race to his prestige.
Gore is viewed as a joke on the right generally here. But that was the case among Independents and some on the left 7 years ago. That is no longer the case. Whether the right here believes he is a joke is irrelevent because he’s admired by independents now and of course on the left. In the rest of the world, he’s seen as a statesman.
Right now, it’s mostly just those on the right that tear apart his work on Global Warming. Yes, a judge finds errors in his film, but the judge points out the overall points of the film are correct and that’s really the story among the international media as well. If he were to get in the race, the mainstream media would start repeating right wing talking points about his work because they kind of have to if they’re going to cover the candidates’ words on both sides. His positions would be reduced to soundbytes and his work would be reduced to pure politics, when the reality is that there are serious environmental problems that he’s trying to tackle.
I would be surprised and dismayed if he entered, my dismay being both for his work being diminished and his lack of judgment on what it would do to his work.
So my prediction…he doesn’t enter.
Comment by Dan @ 10/12/2007 - 9:03 am
It is worth reading the news article as linked. The judge finds ‘insufficient” evidence for some things stated as a certainty, and does say or imply that Gore overstated his evidence in more than one place. But neither the judge nor scientists in the field dispute either the main theme of Gore’s film, nor the huge preponderance of sub themes and specific facts, episodes and implications as stated by Gore.
He may well have overstated a bit, but that sure as heck does not amount to refutation of nor even a serious discount against his argument. The judge was careful, in fact, to make plain that his findings did not refute the film’s message.
I have NO idea why this has become a liberal/conservative dispute. Al Gore is obviously a political figure, but this particular episode in his career of environmentalism is clearly to be tested by science and the accumulation of evidence, not by political philosophy or contention.
Maybe it just ticks off many conservatives that an a Democrat might have gotten hold of a really, really, compelling issue, and is looking more right than not as time goes on.
Hey, it could happen. Face up to it.
More important, there really is an issue of great import here, and to argument-no matter how fierce–will not hold back the tide, as King Canute took such pains to teach us.
Comment by brendan @ 10/12/2007 - 1:57 pm