The Sham Nobel

According to the will of Alfred Nobel, the Peace Prize he inaugurated should be awarded "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 and promotion of peace congresses." Some of the U.S. recipients of the Peace Prize: Cordell Hull, Secretary of State, World War II; General George C. Marshall (architect of the Marshall Plan that salvaged Europe after World War II); Teddy Roosevelt, president, Spanish-American War and builder of the Panama Canal; and Woodrow Wilson, president, World War I, and passionate sponsor of the League of Nations. History is replete with accounts regarding how these men merited the award by satisfying the requirements enunciated by Nobel (1833-1896).

In some eras – or at least some years – the award has seemed to comprise a political statement rather than have anything to do with the gaining and/or maintaining of peace anywhere, much less worldwide. The Nobel committee pulled everyone’s leg in 1994 in awarding a portion of it to Yasser Arafat, for instance, a terrorist who headed a terrorist organization.

The man most responsible for what there is of current world peace – Ronald Reagan – never received the prize, even though he helped the Afghans throw the Soviets out of their country in the decade of the 80s and in the process advanced the Soviet Union, the most dangerous nation-state in all of history, to extinction. George H.W. Bush proved in the Kuwait matter that one country may not simply grab another with impunity.

December 06, 2006: ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: Calling the Iraq war "the worst strategic mistake in the entire history of the United States" and "worse than a civil war," former Vice President Gore urged President Bush to find a way to get U.S. troops out of Iraq "as quickly as possible without making the situation worse" while appearing this morning on NBC's "Today."

The above comprises the reason that Gore won the Nobel. If memory serves, Gore has lambasted the U.S. in especially his speeches in Europe recently, in the same mode as that of Jimmy Carter, who has recapped his 2002 Nobel speech maligning this country many times, especially on foreign soil, pointing to the certainty that a future U.S. malign-monger of high office would get the prize. Besides the fact that Gore has done nothing toward bringing about world peace, only the most gullible are taken in by the climate hoax he’s perpetrated, although the education establishment in England (or at least some of it) has not. This is the state of affairs there with regard to Gore’s film and pertaining to a lawsuit regarding its use in schools:

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.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3)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.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
(8) 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.
(9) 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.

There’s been talk of a Gore run for the presidency, though he doesn’t seem to have that on his agenda. It’s just as well, particularly in light of the fallacies/misstatements (lies?) utilized in his effort to save the planet. The climate-change thing would haunt him. Such a campaign – probably starting with Gore at or near the top of the polls – would make for the best theater one could hope for.