Al Gore, Ignoble Laureate

Saturday, October 6, 2007



http://qtech9.blogspot.com/2007/10/al-gore-ignoble-laureate.html



By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY



Political Correctness: The front-runners for this year's Nobel
Peace Prize are a couple of global warming alarmists. With dozens
of wars raging, the committee couldn't find a single person
laboring honorably for peace?



Once a symbol of distinction, this honor has plumbed shameful
depths in recent years. A county fair blue ribbon has more
significance. Since 1990, winners include terrorist Yasser
Arafat, fraud Rigoberto Menchu, foreign-policy incompetents Jimmy
Carter and Kofi Annan, unreconstructed communist Mikhail
Gorbachev and the useless Mohamed ElBaradei.

Pulling the world apart, not together, with his global warming
claims.



Pulling the world apart, not together, with his global warming
claims.



Each year, the Peace Prize committee has a chance to redeem
itself, yet it never seems up to the task. It looks like 2007
will be no exception. Later this week, say reports, it will name
as this year's co-winners Al Gore and Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a
Canadian who has drawn attention to what she believes are climate
change's effects on Arctic communities.



It will be interesting to see how those two will be linked to
anything resembling the promotion of peace.



Neither can meet the committee's qualifications by being "the
person who shall have done the most or the best work for
fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of
standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace
congresses."



On the contrary, Gore, Watt-Cloutier and their eco-activist
allies have created a divide where none should exist. They have
fostered an us-against-them world where global-warming skeptics
must be subdued by the global-warming believers.



The two sides cannot live in tranquility by agreeing to disagree:
Doubters must be mocked, maligned and marginalized.



In fact, it would be hard to find a less deserving recipient than
Gore, a man who has:



. Lied repeatedly about the existence of a scientific consensus
that man's emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the Earth.
Skeptics are easy to find, as only a few minutes of riding the
Information Superhighway that Gore thinks he built will show .



. Made a propaganda film about climate change that a British
court has deemed to be so biased that teachers there who show it
must warn students about its subjectivity.



. Possibly been driven to his climate alarmism because of
something called Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In a piece
for IBD last year, Dr. Henry I. Miller, a physician and fellow at
the Hoover Institution who worked at both the National Institutes
of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, laid out a good
case that the former vice president "is disturbed."



Well, maybe he is, maybe he isn't. We're not experts. But the guy
has already won an Oscar; does the Nobel committee really need to
stoke the fires of his vanity even more?



. Continued to duck invitations to debate his theory. "We have
tried, repeatedly, to contact Gore directly, with registered
letters and calls to his office, and have never received a
reply," Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute in
Chicago, told Chicago Sun-Times columnist Steve Huntley.



Huntley notes that earlier this year Gore "canceled an interview
with Denmark's largest newspaper when he learned it would include
questions from Bjorn Lomborg, respected author of 'The Skeptical
Environmentalist.' "



Does Gore know what so many have missed in their environmental
zealotry - that his theory's many flaws cannot be defended? Is he
aware that the errors of his global warming ideas would be quite
easily exposed by a knowledgeable skeptic?



Just what the Nobel committee really needs - another fraud in its
pantheon of laureates. If Gore wins the prize as expected, it
will mark another step in the long, politicized decline of a once
highly regarded international award. How sad.



Posted by Elias P. at 1:07 AM
-- 

Regards

Bonzo

"In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure
of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since
1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend,
let alone a dangerous one." Bob Carter, Research Professor of
Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?