Maurizio – Omnologos

Where no subject is left unturned

Nobel Peace Prize awarded to alarmist prone to shout off questioners…

with 4 comments

…and to Intergovernmental Panel that discards all commentaries that are not “on-message”.

Fortunately Lysenko has been dead for a few years otherwise next year’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry would have been his.

And it’s the first time in history that a Nobel Prize has been assigned not in recognition of the past, not as a reward for the present, but for reasons that may, perhaps, happen sometimes in the future…

A reminder of Al Gore’s attitudes:

…after the interview [Al Gore] and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of climate-sceptic traitor.”

Here also a link to the full reasons for a British High Court Justice to state that “some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in An Inconvenient Truth in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis“.

Interestingly, there are nine inaccuracies that as a consequence of a court’s decision “have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children“:

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Written by omnologos

2007/Oct/12 at 12:27:26

Posted in catastrophism, Climate Change, Nobel, Science

Tagged with

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Al Gore won because the rest of the world understands a simply scientific fact – humans are accelerating the rate of global warming and it’s beginning to be dangerous. Only a small percentage of Americans believes global warming is not actually happening. They stand alone while the rest of the world would like to do something now before the problem gets worse. You know… solving problems BEFORE they happen… the SMART thing to do…


    2007/Oct/12 at 18:52:56

  2. […] not from regular news sources but from WordPress News. From a blogger featured there who’s not particularly happy about this. Who was moved to commment: Lysenko has been dead for a few years otherwise next year’s Nobel […]

  3. Cliff

    Once upon a time scientists would earn scientific prizes for their science work (and as Pauling has shown, peace prizes for their peace work). How good will it do to the IPCC to officially be labeled a political organization, you tell me.

    As for problems, again, once upon a time scientist would get their prizes AFTER solving them, not just by pointing out the possibility


    2007/Oct/12 at 21:02:35

  4. Maurizio,
    I saw your comment on the Al Gore blog site for the IHT and New York Times run by Libby Rosenthal. GOod post. Curious, have you ever heard of my idea of polar cities, and what do you think of the idea?

    email me at danbloom GMAIL

    Polar cities should be in active construction within 50 years. These
    SPR’s, sustainable polar retreats, in other words, will function
    primarily to house potential survivors of catastrophic global warming
    events in the far distant future, perhaps by the year 2300 or so. It’s
    good to be prepared, according to the U.N. Homelands Security Office
    in Oslo, and these polar cities, situated in both polar regions of the
    planet, will be capable of handling up to 2 million people — human
    breeding pairs and their families — to ensure the continuation of our
    species. After the Earth’s temperatures cool enough to permit
    resettlement of the planet’s temperate and tropiocal regions again,
    the polar cities will become historical oddities and turned into
    musuems, according to the UN office. Learn more online, just google
    “polar cities” or check the Wikipedia entry for them.

    Danny Bloom

    2007/Oct/17 at 13:19:42

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: