Al Gore forsakes founder Alfred Nobel
By Kevin Roeten (10/28/07)
Since 1901, the Nobel Prize($10 million) has been awarded for achievements in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature and Peace. According to the last will and testament of Alfred Nobel(founder) whose purpose was to bestow the merited honor "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding an promotion of peace congresses." On 12/12/07 Al Gore, Jr. decimated that concept.
The Nobel committee awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to Gore and the UN’s IPCC(including 10 out of Asheville, NC). Not the Nobel Science Prize—the Peace Prize. It was awarded “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge of man-made climate change.”
The Nobel Committee(awarder) is made up of five people appointed by the Norwegian Parliament(Storting), who serve for six years. One could say that this Committee is a direct reflection of the Norwegian government’s opinion. If one checks, three of those votes are locked in for radical environmentalism, and three of five is always the majority. It’s highly probable that the Committee could not award Gore and his cohorts a ‘Science’ prize, because science usually relies on facts.
The Committee’s rules specify that the proceedings remain secret, and members must abstain from speaking publicly. We will never know how the vote came down. But since Nobel’s death, strange ‘laureates’ have won the prize--winners that Nobel himself would not likely have selected.
A few of the more recent ‘winners’ include the Grameen Bank[1965], land mine activists[1997], nuclear disarmament[1985], Kofi Annon/ UN[2001] (Oil-for-Food Program with Hussein), Yasser Arafat[1994](occasional warmongerer), the UN Peacekeeping Forces[1988], the UN High Commissioner for Refugees[1981], Wangari Maathai[2004], Jimmy Carter[2002], and many others.
Bottom line--many of the award recipients after Nobel’s death seem like the very antithesis of that award. Gore has reiterated that he is for abortion, as well as global population control, and thinks both are intricately intertwined. It’s seems obvious that Gore’s promotion of his widely alarmist and highly disputed climate change scenario, his unwavering support of abortion and population control, his praise of the Gaia Cult, and revival of primitive pagan cults(AsiaNews), have put him in direct opposition with previous winners and Nobel’s stated purpose of the award.
Previous winner Mother Theresa of Calcutta stated, “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.” Pope John Paul II, who probably should have received the award, compared abortion to the Holocaust, which has the “…grave danger that the false interpretation of human rights poses…”
Just hours before the Committee announced Gore’s win, he was busy squeezing his way out of a devastating UK court case that found 9 important science errors in his recent film. These 9 errors are ‘the’ sustaining claims in “An Inconvenient Truth”. Last week a British judge ruled that it “…contains 9 scientific errors that were made in the context of alarmism and exaggeration.” It is considered unscientific, and has been banned from screening in British schools. Gore obviously does not see that when graphed, CO2 level increases always seem to follow temperature spikes.
But Gore recovered immediately, saying the mistakes were only a “handful” amid “thousands of other facts in the film”. It’s ominous and reminiscent when Amy Ridenour(TownHall) says “…energy, after all, is one of the means of production, and Al Gore wants the government to control it.”
As the IPCC has struggled to revise some of its forecasts from proven inaccuracies, we have heard from its president, Rajendra Pachaur. He said he wanted to use the information [inaccuracies] to shake people and governments into doing something. That is alarmist behavior to many. Alfred Nobel is probably turning over in his grave knowing where his life savings is going to right now.
Those 10 Asheville ‘scientists’(review editor, lead authors, and contributing authors) share in the Peace Prize with Gore. But actual results(Inhofe/R-Ok) reveal that a survey of 538 peer-reviewed studies, show less than half of the published scientists endorse man-made global warming theory. And understandably, only 7% believe that man-made gases are a major cause of global warming. Will the common population learn as fast?
Kevin Roeten
http://kevinroeten.us/
(Printer friendly version) Email: Kevin Roeten
