Archive for the ‘Nobel Peace Prize’ Category

Al Gore – The environment guru has a big house, flies in big planes… and now captains a big boat.

August 7, 2008

Al Gore’s message to you – Do as I say not as I do.

August 6, 2008

– by Steve Gill

Gore, the Nobel-winning self-proclaimed global prophet of green, has made a lot of money from the so-called “crisis” of global warming. He has profited from best-selling books that tout the looming climatic catastrophe, won an Academy Award for a movie about his slideshow presentation that focuses on his “sky is falling” message about a world on the brink of environmental disaster.

His business interests have been focused on the profit side of the equation when it comes to “global warming,” creating a “carbon credits” program that has put millions of dollars into the pockets of Gore and his environmental cronies. There are also financial interests benefiting from the sudden shift to the ‘environmentally friendly’ light bulbs that he has trumpeted so loudly: his friends at General Electric stand to make big money from the congressionally mandated demand for their new light bulbs.

There is no question that the alarmism and doomsday scenarios spread by Al Gore have been very, very beneficial to him personally and professionally.

But the question persists as to whether he actually buys into what he is selling. His own behavior clearly indicates that he doesn’t believe we are at a “tipping point” of worldwide environmental destruction. While he preaches that the rest of us must dramatically change our lifestyles and lower our standards of living to “save the planet” he lives by another set of rules himself.

It happens in the air, where he jets about in private planes that consume massive amounts of energy to spread his message of “conservation.”

His hypocrisy is revealed on land, where he travels in fleets of limos and SUVs to deliver speeches about the dire consequences of ignoring “man-made global warming” — and leaves the cars running throughout his entire speech in order to ensure that they will be nice and cool when he exits the building and returns to his gas-guzzling vehicles.

His supposedly “green” mansion consumes electricity that dwarfs the consumption of the typical family home.

And now, in order to complete his hypocrisy trifecta, Al Gore may now be extending his excessive consumption to the water as well. In an amazing display of conspicuous consumption, even for Al Gore, his new 100-foot houseboat that docks at the Hurricane Marina in Smithville, Tennessee is creating a critical buzz among many of his former congressional constituents. Dubbed “Bio-Solar One,” which may reflect some latent Air Force One envy, Gore has proudly strutted the small-town dock claiming that his monstrous houseboat is environmentally friendly. (Only Al Gore would name his boat B.S. One and not get the joke. Or perhaps the joke is on us?)

Al Gore's new houseboat

Al Gore's new houseboat

The boat is a custom-built Fantasy Yacht built specifically for Gore by Bill Austin of Sparta, Tennessee.

According to Austin, the engines are bio-diesel fueled and Gore can expect to use about two gallons an hour to cruise Center Hill Lake. With a 500 gallon capacity Austin says Gore won’t need a refill for “two or three years” though he admits having “no clue” about where Gore could get bio-diesel at the lake. The Hurricane Marina dock doesn’t sell it.

[Continues, with more pictures, on page 2]

Advertisements

The media snowjob on global warming

March 10, 2008

 Editor
Is the National post is the last paper in Canada?

The media snowjob on global warming

Lorne Gunter, National Post  Published: Monday, March 10, 2008

Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize, not a science award.Ronaldo Schemidt, AFP, Getty ImagesAl Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize, not a science award.

Just how pervasive the bias at most news outlets is in favour of climate alarmism — and how little interest most outlets have in reporting any research that diverges from the alarmist orthodoxy — can be seen in a Washington Post story on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), announced last week in New York.

The NIPCC is a counter to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The group was unveiled this week in Manhattan at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, along with its scientific report claiming that natural factors — the sun, El Ninos and La Ninas, volcanoes, etc, — not human sources are behind global warming.

The Washington Post’s first instincts (not just on its opinion pages, but in its news coverage, too) were cleverly to sew doubt of the group’s credibility by pointing out to readers that many of the participants had ties to conservative politicians, such as former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, and that the conference sponsor — the Heartland Institute — received money from oil companies and health care corporations.

That’s standard fare, and partly fair, so that’s not what I am talking about.

The insidiousness I am referring to is the unfavourable way the Post compared the NIPCC report to the IPCC’s famous report of last year.

After reminding readers that the IPCC and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their work on climate change, the paper then, sneeringly, added: “While the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists.”

First of all, the IPCC and Mr. Gore won the Peace Prize, not a science prize, which only proves they are good at politics. They didn’t win the Physics Prize, for instance.

Also, while the former vice-prez may have invented the Internet (by his own admission), he is demonstrably not a scientist. Yet in the same paragraph as the Washington Post lionizes Mr. Gore for his work saving the planet, it backhands non-scientists for meddling in the climate change debate, never once showing any hint it recognized its own hypocrisy.

And the paper displays its utter lack of intellectual curiosity, too.

Full Story at the National Post 

Gore to join private equity firm

November 12, 2007

The story is from the BBC the links are mine.

Gore to join private equity firm

Al Gore

Al Gore is mobilising money as well as opinion in his climate fight

Al Gore is to become a partner of a US private equity firm with a history of supporting “green technology”. The ex vice-president and environmental activist is to join the board of Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield and Byers.

He will lead investments in alternative energy sources and firms involved in areas such as recycling, alternative fuel and water purification.

Mr Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last month for his work as a climate change campaigner.


Is Al Gore a Chronic Liar?

In the fall of 1968 Al Gore claimed that he’d influenced the nomination acceptance speech of Hubert Humphrey through conversations with a Chicago Sun columnist. Al Gore asserted he was Humphrey’s ghost writer, but the columnist said that he had nothing to do with that speech. Al Gore’s claim wasn’t true.

Technological solutions

Mr Gore won an Oscar for his documentary An Inconvenient Truth which warned of the imminent and catastrophic danger to the planet of global warming.

A conservative think-tank in New Zealand has written to the president of the America’s Academy Awards asking that the Oscar awarded to the director of an Inconvenient Truth be taken back.

Mr Gore is already heavily involved in supporting energy technology solutions through his investment fund Generation Investment Management (GIM).

From the BBC

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

October 13, 2007

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

By Noel Sheppard | October 9, 2007 – 00:55 ET

Here’s something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore’s schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” contains at least eleven material falsehoods.

It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won’t be discussing this Tuesday morning, wouldn’t you agree?

For those that haven’t been following this case, a British truck driver filed a lawsuit to prevent the airing of Gore’s alarmist detritus in England’s public schools.

According to the website of the political party the plaintiff, Stewart Dimmock, belongs to (ecstatic emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano):

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?

  • 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 the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
  • The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
  • 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.

In the end, a climate change skeptic in the States must hope that an American truck driver files such a lawsuit here so that a U.S. judge can make similar determinations.

Of course, even if one could find such an impartial jurist, our media wouldn’t find it newsworthy, would they?

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Seriously Inconvenient Truth: Producers of Gore’s Film Asked to Return Oscars

October 13, 2007

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

By Noel Sheppard | October 11, 2007 – 22:46 ET

As media in America fall all over themselves with glee at the thought of the Global Warmingist-in-Chief winning a Nobel Peace Prize, Wednesday’s findings by a British judge that Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” contained nine material falsehoods has prompted a request to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to strip the movie’s producers of the Oscars they received in February for “Best Documentary.”

How delicious.

As reported by The West Australian Friday:

A conservative think-tank in New Zealand has written to the president of the America’s Academy Awards asking that the Oscar awarded to the director of an Inconvenient Truth be taken back.

Former New Zealand MP Dr Muriel Newman, director of web-based think-tank the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, said she had taken the measure in response to a British High Court ruling Thursday.

This is her actual press release (emphasis added):

“With the release of the British High Court judgement overnight that found that ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, it is clear that Al Gore embellished the truth to create dramatic effect (more details).

Given that the Oscar Award was presented in the documentary category and not the drama category, the only appropriate action now is for the Academy to rescind the Award as it was clearly inappropriately classed as a documentary.

“The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism. Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this documentary is not.

This situation is not unlike that confronting sports bodies, when their sports “stars” are found to be drug cheats. In such cases, the sportsmen and women are stripped of their medals and titles, with the next-place getter elevated. While this is an extremely unpleasant duty, it is necessary if the integrity of competitive sport is to be protected.

“Just this week Olympic gold medal winner Marion Jones has been stripped of her titles and medals.

If the integrity of the Academy Awards is to remain intact, is wholly appropriate that Al Gore be stripped of his ‘Best Documentary’ film Oscar.

Full Story