The Nobel Prize for alarmism

Andrew Bolt
Saturday, October 13, 2007 at 06:50am


American voters have seen Elmer Gantry, and know just what Al
Gore is - even with a Nobel Prize for hucksterism around his
neck:

  However, while he is now an Academy Award winner and celebrity
activist, just 24% of Americans consider Gore an expert on Global
Warming. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 1,000
adults found that 47% say he is not an expert on the topic.

  In fact, just 36% of Americans say that Gore knows what he is
talking about when it comes to the environment and Global
Warming.

Less scepticism here, I suspect, largely due to the messianic
fervor of many news organistations for the global warming faith.

Exhibit A: The Age's report of Gore's win, which fails to note:

- Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was this week found by a British
judge to have made (at least) nine false claims in "the context
of alarmism and exaggeration".

- Gore earns millions from his alarmism.

- The world's temperature, despite the Gore scare, has not risen
about the levels in 1998.

- The Nobel Peace Prize Committee apparently bent its own rules
to give Gore the prize.

- The Peace Prize's credibility has been sullied by having been
won by the terrorist Yasser Arafat and the fraud Rigoberta
Menchu.

The Age goes on to make the following false claims:

- The co-winner of the prize, the IPOCC, has a "reputation for
neutrality".

- The IPCC has "progressively silenced the once-mighty lobby of
climate sceptics".

- The IPCC has "prompted even the most reluctant political leader
to pledges of action".

Each of those claims is false, as you can see from the links
provided. And if these claims are false, what else does The Age
tell you about global warming that's as wrong as Al Gore?

UPDATE

Daily Telegraph readers aren't impressed, to judge by this poll -
even given that the question was written by a journalist who
seems yet to realise the full extent of the case against Gore.
-- 

Regards

Bonzo

"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a
process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived
agendas and being scientifically unsound". Hurricane Expert Chris
Landsea ( He resigned from the IPCC in 2005)

"Bonzo"  wrote in message 
news:471040ec$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> The Nobel Prize for alarmism

"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?

"Bonzo"  babbled in message

<claptrap snipped>

There ought to be a bloody fine for littering Usenet?

Listen, Bozo, you fucking embarrassing hayseed, *stop* cluttering up this ng
with your mindless drivel.

You're an embarrassment to those of us with functioning neurones.

Now kindly do us all a favour and PISS-OFF!!!