I wonder if there is a procedure for revoking a Nobel Prize. If so I nominate Al Gore for the de-lauding process. Unfortunately we must admit that he was at one time Vice President of the United States, but we cannot all be blamed for that lapse of judgment.
Growing up I was enamored with the idea of the Nobel Prize. It appealed to the romantic in me ā to imagine being recognized by the world for achievement in Science, Literature or humanitarian efforts. Of course now that I am all grown up, the rose-tinted glasses have been removed, and to tell the truth, I feel robbed, yes, even bamboozled.
Former Vice President, Al Gore along with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. The Vice Presidentās receipt of this dubious honor was, in my estimation, nauseating and so began my disenchantment with the Nobel Committee. Gore is now recognized for his work on āAn Inconvenient Truth,ā a body of fiction that has helped to propel an anxious nation into a frenzy of social and economic initiatives designed to save the world from humans and their dreaded carbon footprint. Mr. Gore continues to lend his megaphone to the partisan scientific community and travels the globe over invading classrooms and conferences with his particular brand of propaganda.
By now many of us are aware of the deception perpetrated by some in the global warming community, thanks, in part, to the hackers who took a cyber-joyride into the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England a couple of weeks ago. This outfit boasts the worldās largest temperature data set and aims to improve scientific understanding of the course and causes of climate change. Notably, the CRUs work is relied upon by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the IPCC.
But the publicity the unit is receiving presently speaks more to the lengths they will travel to advance their initiatives than it does of their devotion to the scientific method. The documents uncovered from the CRU intimate a willful misrepresentation of facts, destruction and manipulation of scientific data, and most despicably intent to defraud the global community.
But what the hackers uncovered at the CRU also denotes vindication for those honest scientists who began debunking the flawed science of global warming years ago. Sadly, these men and women, who rely on actual data before forming their conclusions, have been largely ignored by the media and those in positions of power, while the more vocal proponents of anthropogenic global warming have moved their agenda forward. This agenda is clearly defined in the Copenhagen treaty and is fraught with political power plays set forth by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Redistribution of wealth and the usurping of national sovereignty appear to be the IPCCs true goal. Upon the premise of reducing CO2 emissions the aforementioned treaty threatens to put first world nations, specifically the U.S., at the mercy of a ruling body outside of their own governments. This Intergovernmental Council intends to impose its own standards and regulations on American industry. The treaty would further require that the U.S. pay reparations for climate debt to third-world countries. This is not surprising considering the members of the IPCC have long criticized the U.S. for both taking more than its fair share of resources and producing more than its share of waste.
Will the IPCCs old arguments withstand the storm created by the implication of a global conspiracy? I should hope that the information unveiled at the CRU would at least create waves in Congress long enough to upset the economy-busting Cap and Trade legislation. Common sense demands a full throttle stop, but weāll just have to wait and see. The EPA and green interest groups are not apt to jump ship and will attempt to keep this legislation on course.
A lot is at stake for green energy activists, not the least of which is money, influence and power. Citizens, armed with the facts, need to contact their Congressmen and raise a stink, but Iām not sure that even half of the populace is aware that global warming science has been seriously challenged in the last week. After all many of the major media outlets have not even reported on this scandal. Apparently the truth and honest debate are rare commodities in the halls of progress.
On that note my thoughts drift to Alfred Nobel and his many curious laureates. While it is unlikely we will bear witness to the de-lauding of Mr. Al Gore, not to mention the IPCC, anytime in the near future, a girl can dream. And while Iām at it, I may consider a few other Nobel recipients whose accomplishments are suspect. I welcome your thoughtful submissions.
