Kowabunga

Strib Supports Boracle Nobel Prize

The editorial staff of the Red Star Tribune ran an editorial piece about Al Gore and his recent Nobel Peace Prize for his work in propaganda. In it, they claim the Boracle can do more good outside the beltway rather than reentering the political arena, while blasting at conservatives critical of the award as being naysayers.

Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize has set off a firestorm of commentary, from both liberals and conservatives. While his prize is well-deserved, despite right-wing naysaying, the country would be better served by Gore remaining outside Beltway politics.

Actually, Al “Carbon Bigfoot” Gore does more damage by staying out of the race. Why? The answer will become clear in a minute.

Some conservative pundits complained about the relevancy of a peace prize for work on climate change. With a little knowledge of political behavior, however, it’s easy to predict how a shifting climate will change natural resources and complicate international relations. When some areas of the world dry up, inhabitants will migrate elsewhere, bringing conflict in their wake.

Yes, the relevancy is highly questionable. The Boracle’s An Inconvenient Truth was more political propaganda than science, and much of the science reported in it was erroneous with even more scientific facts ignored, just as was done in the latest IPCC report. Yep, the climate is changing, however that is nothing new. The Earth’s climate has undergone change since the beginning of time and will continue to do so until the end of time. People will move with the resources, just as they have done in the past. That’s just the way things work.

The science of global climate change survived vicious attacks on its credibility (in part due to the consensus of nearly all scientists familiar with the issue). Backers of the big polluters are now trying to assassinate the character of the messenger. [By] staying out of the political arena, [Gore] will deprive the cynics of claiming [his] work is for personal gains in power. …

“Credibility (in part due to the consensus of nearly all scientists familiar with the issue)”? What credibility is their when they ignore the ice core samples that cover hundreds of thousands of years of climate data? Or the impact of sun spot activity on the climate? And a host of other factors? As for the consensus? What consensus is there? Check here and here for an update on the so called “scientific consensus”. There is a consensus that the climate is changing, but not on the cause.

The piece also gets it wrong that the Boracle deprives those who disagree with him on the cause of the current warming trend that this is about personal power. I don’t think any one has claimed he is doing this for personal power. However his staying out of the political arena allows him to steer clear of open debate on the issue and having to back up is claims when faced with real scientific data.

Elder statesmen are freed from the constraints of facing reelection. Hence, they may be candid about what they believe. People with vested interests in issues rarely give an accurate portrayal, and elected officials always have a vested interest in political matters.

Sure, he can be candid about his beliefs, but is he giving us an scientifically accurate analysis? One thing the piece is right about is that people with vested interests “rarely give an accurate portrayal” on the issues they are involved with. The same is true with Al gore and his carbon credit business:

By staying clear of the political arena, Gore does more damage in that he is able to maintain his ongoing conflict of interest where carbon emissions is concerned (through Generation Investment Management) and not have to defend his claims in open debate. a double win for the Boracle. Not bad for a failed presidential candidate.

Tags:

Gore Boracle Nobel Peace Prize Moonbat Star Tribune An Inconvenient Truth Star Tribune