Al Gore and IPCC Nobel Peace Prize Winners Found Guilty Before and After Award.

“It is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them.” Mark Twain.

Twain’s observation fits the Nobel Peace Prize given to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their work had nothing to do with Peace, but fomented protests, massive financial loss and famine. Apparently Gore is the only Nobel Prize winner whose award winning work was ruled politically biased and negated by nine scientific errors by a Court prior to receiving the prize. Joint Prize Winners of the IPCC were equally discredited because of activities disclosed in leaked emails at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) who effectively controlled the IPCC. For example, Phil Jones, Director of CRU said,

“I can”t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Gore claimed the ruling was in his favor. Documentary producer McAleem asked him :

“The judge in the British High Court after a lengthy hearing found that there were nine significant errors (in the movie). This has been shown to children. Do you accept those findings, and have you done anything to correct those errors?”


“Well I”m not going to go through, uh, uh, a-all of those. Eh-th-th-the ruling was in favor of the movie, by the way, and the ruling was in favor of showing the movie in schools. And th-th-that”s really th-th-the uh-uh-uh bottom line on that.”

It wasn’t in his favor and he hasn’t corrected the errors. The ruling was judicious and did not arbitrate the scientific disagreements. Justice Burton said

“it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political.”

He didn’t say schools couldn’t show the movie because that challenges academic freedom and free speech. He ordered the government to produce booklets for teachers to advise students of the politics and errors before showing the movie.

He ordered balance in the classroom debate, even recommending a movie, The Great Global Warming Swindle as one equalizer. It’s what skeptics sought all along – a full and open debate.

But it was Gore who told the US Congress that the debate is over, the science is settled. Gore then said

“This is not a partisan issue, this is a moral issue,”

“And our children are going to be demanding this.”

He misinterpreted and contradicted the judge’s ruling and intent, that the issue must be debated.

Gore was already discredited, when his carbon footprint was found too big for his mouth. Other discredits include the millions he made from his misdirection on carbon, failure to answer questions or participate in debate, character online casino assassination of scientists who raised legitimate questions.

A major dilemma was the contradiction over projected sea level rise. The IPCC 2001 Report said,

“Global mean sea level is projected to rise by 0.09 to 0.88 m between the years 1990 and 2100,” .

The 2007 Report raised the lower projection to 0.18 m but significantly lowered the upper limit to 0.59 m. In his ridiculous movie Gore predicted a 20 ft (6m) rise but gave no time frame.

On the Conan O’Brien show of 11/12/09 he said the temperature in the mantle, the deep layer immediately below the crust, is several million degrees just two kilometers down. This is many times hotter than the Sun. It’s frightening to think this man was one step away from the Presidency.

Gore should have been a moral dilemma for the IPCC and CRU, but he wasn’t The CRU gang approved the movie through their web site Realclimate.

“For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right.”

Gore supported them. He said the emails

“don’t change established conclusions.”

“These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.”

Realclimate tells us why, they share a political objective.

“The small errors don’t detract from Gore’s main point,”

which is that,

“This is not entirely a scientific issue — indeed, Gore repeatedly makes the point that it is a moral issue.”

Ignore the science because the end justifies the means.

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. September 7, 2013

    […] am not a climatologist, but the IPCC and its leading spokespersons are not climatologists either. I am content to be a consumer of climatology and its related […]