Let's imagine that a well-known American politician, with a large family, decides to spice up his career, as well as his bank account, by investing his reputation and staking his future on a single issue
That's what Al Gore did when he went all-in on man-made global warming.
The payoff was phenomenal. His Hollywood film, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 2007, even though a British judge ruled that the movie contained at least nine major errors and could not be shown to students without counter-balancing information. Moreover, the BBC alleged that Gore knew that his movie presented false facts, but was afraid that any appearance of uncertainty would simply encourage global warming skeptics.
Retired climatologist Timothy Balls described "An Inconvenient Truth as a "wonderful piece of propaganda" that relies on "visual imagery and gimmickry."
If that is true, said JunkScience.com publisher Steve Milloy, "Gore should win the Nobel Prize for propaganda."
Czech President Vaclav Klaus said he was surprised that Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize, noting that "The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct."
Meanwhile, a conservative think tank in New Zealand came out for stripping Gore’s movie of its Oscar.
The West Australian newspaper reported that the New Zealand Center of Political Research has written to the president of the group that produces the Academy Awards, contending that the alleged scientific errors in the movie disqualify it for the Best Documentary award.
Recently, things have become much thornier for Gore and for other major proponents of man-made global warming theory.
Emails written by climate scientists at East Anglia University, in England, suggest that some of the allegdly scientific data behind the climate center's reports were falsified, and that climate scientists were engaging in a conspsiracy to win acceptance of the global warming argument.
When the questionable data was removed from temperature charts, the famous hockey stick chart showing a recent sharp increase in temperatures no longer showed the uptick.
Nevertheless, Gore has his fortune, and he appears determined to protect it.
The Gores announced recently that they had bought an $8.5 million mansion overlooking the Pacific Ocean in Santa Barbara, CA.
Then the Gores revealed that they are separating after 40 years of marriage, and that Tipper Gore will live in the Santa Barbara mansion. It's her house. And she has played no known role in the global warmng furore.
There already have been calls for Gore to return the Nobel Prize and the Academy Award. If process servers start coming to the door of Al Gore's mansion in Tennessee, looking for financial recovery on matters related to the global warming hoax, look for the strategic separation to be followed by a strategic divorce.
She'll get the house in Santa Barbara.
Showing posts with label Nobel Peace Prize. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nobel Peace Prize. Show all posts
Monday, June 14, 2010
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Inquiry about Obama's Nobel: "Were they drunk?"
The left-wing NRC Handelsblad (Netherlands): ”What got into the committee to award this prize to a man who has yet to live up to the high expectations? Were they drunk?”
Center-left to center Volkskrant (Netherlands): ”It’s clear that Obama has increasingly more difficulty meeting expectations. His inspiring words about peace and deproliferation have yet to be supported by any concrete results. What is meant to be a reward [for great achievements], could very well end up being tremendous burden for Obama.”
The right-of-center Telegraaf (Netherlands): “This isn’t the first mistake of the Committee, but it is the biggest. The value of the Nobel Peace Prize has been diminished.”
Benedict Brogan, writing for the British newspaper the Telegraph: “To reward him for a blank results sheet, to inflate him when he has no achievements to his name, makes a mockery of what, let’s face it, is an already fairly discredited process (remember Rigoberta Menchu in 1992? Ha!). That’s not the point. What this does is accelerate the elevation of President Obama to a comedy confection, which he does not deserve, and gives his critics yet another bat to whack him with. Shame on the Swedes Norwegians*. He should turn it down, even if he does look great in white tie and tails.”
The Times of London: “Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.
“Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.”
Center-left to center Volkskrant (Netherlands): ”It’s clear that Obama has increasingly more difficulty meeting expectations. His inspiring words about peace and deproliferation have yet to be supported by any concrete results. What is meant to be a reward [for great achievements], could very well end up being tremendous burden for Obama.”
The right-of-center Telegraaf (Netherlands): “This isn’t the first mistake of the Committee, but it is the biggest. The value of the Nobel Peace Prize has been diminished.”
Benedict Brogan, writing for the British newspaper the Telegraph: “To reward him for a blank results sheet, to inflate him when he has no achievements to his name, makes a mockery of what, let’s face it, is an already fairly discredited process (remember Rigoberta Menchu in 1992? Ha!). That’s not the point. What this does is accelerate the elevation of President Obama to a comedy confection, which he does not deserve, and gives his critics yet another bat to whack him with. Shame on the Swedes Norwegians*. He should turn it down, even if he does look great in white tie and tails.”
The Times of London: “Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.
“Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.”
Nobel has been "captive to the politics of the time"
19th century dynamite magnate Alfred Nobel envisioned the Peace Prize that bears his name as honoring those "who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations." But the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, which Friday named President Barack Obama as the 2009 laureate, has throughout its history been captive to the politics of the time.
Past Winners
In October 1989, for example, with China's Tiananmen Square uprising still fresh, the committee announced it was awarding the prize to Beijing's nemesis, the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. It was, ostensibly, recognition of the Dalai Lama's struggle against more than 30 years of Chinese occupation -- but also a slap at Beijing.
"The Norwegians know they have the opportunity to influence world opinion twice a year" -- when they announce the prize and when they award it, said Scott London, co-author of a new book on Nobel lectures with his historian grandfather, Irwin Abrams. "And they want to make the most of it."
Such early laureates as Mr. Nobel's friend Baroness Bertha von Suttner were activists in idealistic, if ineffectual, peace groups. "It is erroneous to believe that the future will of necessity continue the trends of the past and the present," the baroness said in her 1905 acceptance speech, four years after the first prize was given and nine years before the start of World War I.
President Theodore Roosevelt, who received the 1906 prize for his mediation of the Russo-Japanese war, was the first person with political power to be tapped. Gunnar Knudsen, president of the Norwegian parliament, praised Mr. Roosevelt's "happy role in bringing to an end the bloody war."
Mr. Roosevelt was hardly a pacifist. He had earned his stripes as an enthusiastic cavalry commander fighting Spanish troops in Cuba. Some argued the Norwegians chose Mr. Roosevelt to curry favor with the U.S.
Past Winners
In October 1989, for example, with China's Tiananmen Square uprising still fresh, the committee announced it was awarding the prize to Beijing's nemesis, the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. It was, ostensibly, recognition of the Dalai Lama's struggle against more than 30 years of Chinese occupation -- but also a slap at Beijing.
"The Norwegians know they have the opportunity to influence world opinion twice a year" -- when they announce the prize and when they award it, said Scott London, co-author of a new book on Nobel lectures with his historian grandfather, Irwin Abrams. "And they want to make the most of it."
Such early laureates as Mr. Nobel's friend Baroness Bertha von Suttner were activists in idealistic, if ineffectual, peace groups. "It is erroneous to believe that the future will of necessity continue the trends of the past and the present," the baroness said in her 1905 acceptance speech, four years after the first prize was given and nine years before the start of World War I.
President Theodore Roosevelt, who received the 1906 prize for his mediation of the Russo-Japanese war, was the first person with political power to be tapped. Gunnar Knudsen, president of the Norwegian parliament, praised Mr. Roosevelt's "happy role in bringing to an end the bloody war."
Mr. Roosevelt was hardly a pacifist. He had earned his stripes as an enthusiastic cavalry commander fighting Spanish troops in Cuba. Some argued the Norwegians chose Mr. Roosevelt to curry favor with the U.S.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Further explanation of Obama's Nobel prize
In my tireless effort to shed light on the Norwegian Nobel committee's award of the Peace Prize to President Barack Obama, I offer some glimpses of the rather odd history of Scandinavia. Click on the headline of this blog post.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Nobel committee seeking "preemptive peace"
"George W. Bush launched a “preemptive” war. Now the Nobel Committee is trying for “preemptive” peace. I had always thought the way these things worked was that you helped bring peace or democracy to some corner of the globe first, and then you won the Nobel Prize. But this year, the Nobel Committee has turned that logic around: It clearly likes what Obama is trying to do: on nuclear disarmament, climate change and Middle East peace—and so, in a “preemptive” strike, it’s giving him the award now, in hopes that doing so will boost his chances of success later. It’s an interesting idea. Perhaps next they’ll start giving Oscars not to the people who have made the best movies of last year, but to the people who have the best chance of making the best movies next year. After all, once you’ve already made the movie, you no longer need the encouragement."
With Nobel Prize, globalists welcome Obama
Carefully avoiding the reset button, Norway's Nobel Peace Prize committee on Friday awarded this year's honor to Preesidant Barack Obama.
When the news broke, thousands of Americans began drifting into shock.
They revived quickly, however, as they deployed Google and found that Al Gore, Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter had previously won the Peace Prize. So, this was just a bunch of Norwegians doing what they usually do: look for a globalist who abhors shows of strength, projects weakness and leaves the heavy lifting to others.
Obama does differ in some respects, however, from the other three. Gore didn't quite make it to the White House because evil Republicans stole the 2000 eloction in Florida. Arafat admired power. Carter demonstrated his manhood by taking on a swimming rabbit.
The Right Field Line has an explanation for Obama's winning the prize, having been nominated no later than 11 days after he took office. He went to Copenhagen to try to persuade the international Olympic Committee to seclect Chicago for the 2016 Olympic games. Chicago is run by an entrenched political regime, overseen by Mayor Richard Daly, that uses unorthdox methods to reward loyalists and punisih challengers. So did Arafat.
When the Olympic committee chose Rio de Janeiro, Obama was unfazed. Being unfazed after taking a smack to the face earned Obama entry to the Union of European Globalists, in which the Nobal committee plays a key role.
Gore has spent the last decade trying to demote the sun from its supremacy as regulator of world temperatures. To Europe's intellectural elite, failure can be glorious if the failer goes down uttering the proper platitudes.
Unlike Obama, who has piled up a string of faiilures during his nine months in the White House, Carter failed spectacularly for four long years before voters ushered him out of the White House.
Whether Obama can improve his fortunes in the White House remains to be seen. But an alternative path has already been offered. By awarding Obama the peace prize, the Norwegians have informed him that he would be welcomed by the European globalists if things get too hot at home.
When the news broke, thousands of Americans began drifting into shock.
They revived quickly, however, as they deployed Google and found that Al Gore, Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter had previously won the Peace Prize. So, this was just a bunch of Norwegians doing what they usually do: look for a globalist who abhors shows of strength, projects weakness and leaves the heavy lifting to others.
Obama does differ in some respects, however, from the other three. Gore didn't quite make it to the White House because evil Republicans stole the 2000 eloction in Florida. Arafat admired power. Carter demonstrated his manhood by taking on a swimming rabbit.
The Right Field Line has an explanation for Obama's winning the prize, having been nominated no later than 11 days after he took office. He went to Copenhagen to try to persuade the international Olympic Committee to seclect Chicago for the 2016 Olympic games. Chicago is run by an entrenched political regime, overseen by Mayor Richard Daly, that uses unorthdox methods to reward loyalists and punisih challengers. So did Arafat.
When the Olympic committee chose Rio de Janeiro, Obama was unfazed. Being unfazed after taking a smack to the face earned Obama entry to the Union of European Globalists, in which the Nobal committee plays a key role.
Gore has spent the last decade trying to demote the sun from its supremacy as regulator of world temperatures. To Europe's intellectural elite, failure can be glorious if the failer goes down uttering the proper platitudes.
Unlike Obama, who has piled up a string of faiilures during his nine months in the White House, Carter failed spectacularly for four long years before voters ushered him out of the White House.
Whether Obama can improve his fortunes in the White House remains to be seen. But an alternative path has already been offered. By awarding Obama the peace prize, the Norwegians have informed him that he would be welcomed by the European globalists if things get too hot at home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
