President Imadinnerjacket of Iran is famous (or should we say infamous) for his believe that the Holocaust may not have happened. Whenever he's asked about it, he usually gives a vague answer that suggests that Jews weren't slaughtered in concentration camps in Nazi Germany. Anybody with a shred of honesty and intelligence knows he's so full of baloney, Muslim cannibals can't eat him and stay true to Allah.
But now we might have another group as odious as Imadinnerjacket. You might know them better as the Nobel Prize Committee. When they handed out the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore for...well, for agreeing with the faux left's preconceived ideas about global warming, they overlooked another nominee, one who some, including your humble blogger, would say deserved the prize more than Gore.
Her name is Irena Sendler. During World War II, she helped save the lives of 2500 Jewish children from becoming victims of the Nazi concentration camps. If anyone did more to advance humanitarian efforts and peace, the very core values of what the Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to represent, I haven't seen one nominated this year.
Yet, who gets the Peace Prize? Al Gore, because he parrots the faux liberal line on global warming independent of those pesky things we like to call facts.
Does this mean the Nobel Committee is anti-Semitic? Maybe, maybe not. I can't speak for them because a) I don't know them well enough to speak for them, and b) I'm not Norwegian. But it doesn't speak well for them that they would let politics blind them to a real champion for peace.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2007
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.
Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.
Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.
By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.
Oslo, 12 October 2007
And none of this negates the fact that they overlooked a deserving party to give the award to an intellectual fraud like Al Gore, only because he says the "right" things about global warming.
By the way, Gore's now admitting that he made errors in "An Inconvenient Truth." Wow. He's finally coming around to a REAL consensus in the scientific community. LOL
"Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control," writes our friend Anonymous.
And I believe that sums up the core difference between people on the issue. Some think climate is something we can control. Others know that it's one of many, many things in life that are just bigger than we are. We might be able to impact little parts of it, but the whole picture is something that goes well beyond our ability to affect.
This arrogance that we are THAT important is reminiscient of the ancient belief that the universe revolved around the earth, rather than around the sun, coupled with a common logical error, post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, because of this.) Two things happen at the same time, therefore one caused the other. In this case, man advances and the earth warms, therefore man's advance CAUSED the warming.
I don't think we're that important, or that powerful. Try and stop a tornado, and see how powerful you are.
How does Anonymous know that we haven't, for the past however many years been living in a period of abnormal cold? How does Anaon. know what the "correct" temperature of earth "should" be?
But then, this is what happens when we replace God with Man. We expect Man to be able to do God-like things - and are always disappointed.
Incidently - back in the 80s, it was global COOLING that was predicted, "the coming Ice Age." And we all know how THAt prediction worked out.
Substituting faith for reason in such circumstances may be comforting, but it is hardly appropriate. To believe 6,600,000,000 people can have no effect on an ecosystem is either naïve or willfully ignorant.
It was the Christian church that perpetuated the myth of geocentrism. It was the Christian church that preached against vaccines. A belief in God may be helpful in getting one through the darkness of night, but its stifling effect on the advancement of knowledge is well documented.
“But then, this is what happens when we replace Zeus with Man. We expect Man to be able to do Zeus-like things - and are always disappointed.”
It didn’t make much sense 3000 years ago either.
Papa-Daddy said...
Substituting faith for reason in such circumstances may be comforting, but it is hardly appropriate. To believe 6,600,000,000 people can have no effect on an ecosystem is either naïve or willfully ignorant.
Or paying attention to the scientific community as they review the existing data and come up with no conclusive proof that man is responsible for global warming.
It was the Christian church that perpetuated the myth of geocentrism. It was the Christian church that preached against vaccines. A belief in God may be helpful in getting one through the darkness of night, but its stifling effect on the advancement of knowledge is well documented.
And it's the current Church of Global Warming that preaches against intellectual debate over global warming, that tries to destroy anyone who disagrees with them, and that lies about what their true intentions. Makes the global warming side look like a cult, doesn't it?
“But then, this is what happens when we replace Zeus with Man. We expect Man to be able to do Zeus-like things - and are always disappointed.”
It didn’t make much sense 3000 years ago either.
And it doesn't make sense now to do it with Al Gore.
Anyone who lies or misrepresents fact (like Michael Moore) to influence people into making costly and dangerous decisions is not a peacemaker. Gore is much more qualified to win the Nobel Prize for Hypocrisy.
3ooo years ago, Agamemmnon sacrificed his daughter to the gods at the start of the Trojan War - so clearly at the time, the gods were not regarded with such casual atheism as our God is today.
But no matter. Let's take God out of the discussion, since even the slightest suggestion of Him seems to cause so much consternation. The issue STILL remains, are we powerful enough to affect the entire planetary climate?
And I say, while we might be able to influence small parts of it, the overall whole is just bigger than we are.
Perhaps Pap-Daddy can name for me the hurricane, tornado, ice storm, flood, blizzard, drought, volcanic explosion, mudslide, earthquake, planetary alignment, heat wave, cold snap, frost, thunderstorm, or tsunami we've, even all 6 billion of us, been able to stop or impact in the slightest?
And if, as we hear, that the earth's temperature is rising to levels not seen in millions of years, it begs the question - what caused it to heat up the first time?
And how do we KNOW that the temperature we've been living in is the "right" one? How do you know that WE haven't been living in the period of abnormally cool temperatures?
Surely the proponents of man-made global warming can asnwer these questions, and I eagerly await the proof.
To claim that if we cannot alter the course of a hurricane we cannot possibly affect global warming is a non sequitur. We cannot re-grow a limb but we can repair many kinds of damaged hearts. Open heart surgery was impossible until it wasn’t anymore.
Stella Rondo included floods as one of the many natural forces we are unable to control. I would offer the 45000+ man-made large damns (over 49 feet tall) around the world that have stopped, significantly reduced, the flooding cycles of the rivers in which they are installed.
In 2006 a satellite study by showed that only 23.4% of the forest zones (regions with an average tree canopy coverage more than 20%) on the planet remain intact. After thousands of years of Man cutting down forests indiscriminately, we recognize that we have had a significant impact on forests on a global scale. Working together, we have started to reverse that trend.
Climate scientists tell us that atmospheric CO2 levels have remained stable for that thousands of years up until the industrial era. Since the beginning of the industrial era, Man has upset the balance of CO2 production/absorption by generating more than can be naturally absorbed. Since man-made emissions aren’t completely absorbed by natural processes, they accumulate in the atmosphere.
Even though direct satellite measurements of solar intensity have not measured significant changes over the last 25 years, we have seen a rapid global temperature rise. So although solar activity is thought to have been a major factor in climate changes in the past, it is not a factor in our current situation.
Looking at the global temperatures over the last 600,000 years, one can establish what could be called normal or abnormal. What is most striking in our current situation is the trend line pointing beyond what we have experienced in the past, and particularly disturbing because we are already in a non-ice age period. Merely calling something normal or abnormal really isn’t the point though. Changes in agriculture, water supply and coastal landscapes have the potential to displace hundreds of millions of people.
In 2004 a leaked Pentagon report predicted that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies and that the threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism. Will things be as bad as all that? Let’s certainly hope not. But since we know we can have a global affect, it would be wrong for us not to at least try.
In his book, "Up from Liberalism" William F. Buckley wrote:
"Conservatism is the tacit acknowledgement that all that is finally important in human experience is behind us; that the crucial explorations have been undertaken, and that it is given to man to know what are the great truths that emerged from them. Whatever is to come cannot outweigh the importance to man of what has gone before."
So, as usual, conservatives fear the future, cling to the past, and stand in the way of progress. Couple this with their pathological need to submit to an authority figure, it is no wonder they are so easily rallied to fight so aggressively against stepping up to the challenge of fixing the mess we have created.
Ron Miller
Post a Comment