Saturday, October 13, 2007

There's one born every minute

I guess I'll throw my two cents worth in here about Al Gore winning the Nobel peace prize (Terence Corcoran reams the decision in today's Post - A coup for junk science).

In spite of the recent British High Court judgment labelling "Inconvenient Truth" as a 'political' film, some people think that the prize somehow legitimizes Gore's efforts, and that indeed he should now seriously consider challenging Hillary Clinton.

I agree. He should go for it. This award has proven that he has what it takes - the ability to deceive, bend the truth and manipulate the masses. All great assets in the game of politics.


* * * *

Update: Check out PTBC - Fox News report on Gore's Nobel 'Peace' prize. (H/T Bluetech).
That was one of Corcoran's points - that this badly flawed piece of propaganda hardly improved world peace.

Gore and Peace - Peter Foster

Globe - A word or two, Mr. Gore.

Star - Gore's Nobel has Sides Lined Up.

Ottawa Citizen - If only there were a Nobel Peace Prize for Deception.


18 comments:

Anonymous said...

CTV has appointed themselves campaign managers for 'Gore 2008'.
Last night's 11 pm so-called news was no less than 6 minutes about Gore and nothing about the polls showing CPC way ahead.Now they have a poll up asking us to help them advise Gore on his next step.The #3 option in their poll should be: 'slap on some sunscreen and go count polar bears in the Arctic.'
Joel at PTBC has a Fox news report that is more accurate, and journalistically correct.
bluetech

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Bluetech. You have a great sense of humour. ;)

I'll link to Joel's viddy. It's great.

Wayward son said...

Nothing like showing off that you, Terence Corcoran, and the National Post are all dumber than a bag of hammers. None of you have read the rulling by the judge which would give any literate person a entirely difference view of these incredibly minor inaccuracies and have instead relied on the propaganda of a couple denialists sites who have twisted everything the judge said beyond all meaning. Yeah, there is a sucker born every minute and if you were to look sucker up in the dictionary it would have your picture.

The judge said the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact. Judging that the film’s four main scientific hypotheses are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists. Saying that the Judge stopped short of banning the documentary is completely wrong. The judge APPROVED of the film being shown and made it known that he found the errors to be minor and in no way changed the overall message. He recommended an incredibly small write up to help out the dimmest student (and parent) understand that in some cases the side effects of global warming might take longer than lunch hour to occur and in some cases global warming might not be the only contributing factor (which in some of the cases like coral reefs Gore actually mentioned but I guess didn't place enough emphasis).

Most of the "inaccuracies" that the judge sited were based upon believing that people were idiots. For instance Gore didn't state how long it would take Greenland to melt, therefore an idiot might assume that it could melt in the next 10 to 30 years. Did Gore say that it would? Nope.

I have read the ruling and what the judge said is in most cases completely different then what is being spread by conspiracy blogs, right wing denier blogs and newspapers like NP (where apparently asking a reporter to read to ruling is too much work). For instance there were not 11 "innacuracies" there were 9. Conspiracy nutters added another 2 for good measure and reporters are too lazy to check so they just repeat the lies.

I did a small break of the lies being spread by your side (amusing and ironic that while accusing Gore of lying, they have no problem lying about almost everything single thing the judge said) over at RTs although the language might be a little too "colourful" for some people's liking.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9132732&postID=6551379566499279339

Joanne (True Blue) said...

although the language might be a little too "colourful" for some people's liking.

Ever so tempting, but I think I'll pass, thanks.

Anonymous said...

You gotta love it don't you?

I recall, when a few months ago Ontairo's Ed. Ministery Kathleen Wynne alongside the Environment Minister announced that they were getting copies of Gore's movie for our schools.

In today's Post article Wynne is mentioned saying that showing the film to students is optional for teachers.

teachers=lemmings. Monkey see..... and you just have to know that way too many kids are being brainwashed by a one-sided discussion on this issue.

Anonymous said...

and nothing at all special about wayward son's puppy love for continuing to spin junk science. Fill your boots.

The UN has officially dumbed down the peace prize if you ask me.

talk about dumber than a bad of hammers....a lemmings favour snack I hear.

Wayward son said...

The Ottawa Citizen piece is a real beauty, complaining about the film being a gross exaggeration while grossly exaggerating (flat out lying would be a better term) what the judge said.

"The judge ruled the government could distribute the film, but only if accompanied by documents setting out the scientific inaccuracies it contains, and stating that it is political propaganda."

1) these so called accompanying documents could fit on 2 post-it notes.

2) the judge specifically said in his ruling that the film WAS NOT political propaganda or partisan. He couldn't have been any clearer.

"The judge further specified nine inconvenient truths about the film; that is, howling "scientific inaccuracies""

If the judge had of felt that even one of the innacurracies were were "howling", he would have pulled the film, not encourage its use.

"Mr. Gore's film goes demonstrably beyond even the alarmism and exaggeration that are intrinsic to the IPCC's reports.""

The ruling actually shows the film follows the IPCC 99% of the time and that the IPCC represents the scientific consensus. I wish the judge had of also ruled on the "swindle" as not a single frame of that documentary would have passed the criteria.

Anonymous said...

dude - the last time we had an environmental crisis I was in Grade 10 tuning in, turning off and tuning out.

The world was going to come to an end back then we were were warned.

Been their done that.

Did we learn anything?

Al Gore found an political opportunity and took it...nothing more.

Far out man!

This too shall pass Jason.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

In today's Post article Wynne is mentioned saying that showing the film to students is optional for teachers.

Missed that one!

and you just have to know that way too many kids are being brainwashed by a one-sided discussion on this issue.

They're churning out good little Liberal voters. The other scary thing is how the teachers' pension fund has invested in so much MSM.

Wayward son said...

"and nothing at all special about wayward son's puppy love for continuing to spin junk science. Fill your boots."

Too bad you have no idea what junk science is. (I'll give you a hint its the bs which you believe that is being propagated by corporate hacks who know they are lying, but don't care because the money is great. If no real scientist agrees with the baloney you believe then chances are 100% that you are suckered by junk science.)

"The UN has officially dumbed down the peace prize if you ask me."

The peace prize has been dumbed down for more than 30 years. Whether or not Gore and the IPCC should have won the nobel has nothing to do with whether or not the science is correct.

Dirk said...

"The other scary thing is how the teachers' pension fund has invested in so much MSM."

The teachers' pension fund is in no way reflective of the ideological leanings of teachers as a whole. To think there's a conspiracy here is really far fetched.

Anonymous said...

You mean to tell me that there's no connection whatsoever to the teachers and the left media? Is that why most school only stock the Star and Globe in their libraries?

Anonymous said...

The Globalist Green Agenda

In his 2001 book Where On Earth Are We Going?- Eco-capitalist Maurice Strong “argues that managing the technological society requires an entirely new governing structure; not a traditional hierarchy, but "a network of institutions, governmental and
non-governmental, local, regional, national and international."

The Green Corporate barons have positioned to profit from Green-up the economy.
You stack a panel with people who support the agenda ie. IPCC
You discredit dissenting voices –they can’t be true scientists.
You engage the media to soften up the masses. Start with the kids in school.Target corporates who don’t support the agenda are bad corporates and vice versa.

The NGOs’ scripts don't have to be truthful as long as they move the masses. "We save Pandas and Rain forests. Vote for a”green" politician." The politicians partner with the NGOs-provide the NGOs with funding for studies, reports and educating our children on creating a sustainable world a la Al Gore.

Al GORE & the great carbon credit swindle

http://mathaba.net/news/?x=552448

Gore himself buys his carbon off-sets from himself--the Generation Investment Management LLP, "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C." of which he is both chairman and founding partner.

IPCC has lowered the probability of climate change being caused by humans from 90% to 80%. PROBABILTY! Yes there is room for error in the science!!!!!!!!!!!The crime is that while the Green Corporates are lining their pockets having the world expend vast resources for little effect on account of some 80% probability. Those resources should be spent to adapt to the changing climate to alleviate the suffering of 100’s of millions.

wayward son said...

The last anon is a great example of people lying to suit their agenda.

Lets start out with this whopper:

"IPCC has lowered the probability of climate change being caused by humans from 90% to 80%."

1) this is a flat out lie.

2) it isn't even possible. The governments of the world asked for the IPCC to rank the probabilities in a set of broad categories. "Likely" for instance is 66 - 90%, "Very likely" is at least 90%. The scientists at the IPCC were never a big fan of the system because most feel that it is too broad and can be interpreted anyway a reporter wants. For instance the latest IPCC release earlier this year they said that the the they believed that it was "very likely" that humans were causing climate change. Most reporters interpreted this as 90% certain, when the reality was it meant AT LEAST 90% certain and the majority of scientists placed the likelyhood in the 98 - 99% range. But anyways what that means if that if the IPCC had downgraded the likelyhood of humans causing global warming (which they didn't) they wouldn't have said it is now 80% likely, they would have said it was "likely" which would have meant 66% - 90%. I really don't understand why deniers can't tell the truth even 1% of the time and instead just make up bs.

3) Since the last IPCC report the amount of research and findings have been unprecedented. It sounds as though they will be releasing an update in the next couple months confirming that they UNDERESTIMATED the severity and pace of climate change.

"You stack a panel with people who support the agenda ie. IPCC
You discredit dissenting voices –they can’t be true scientists."

This is actually proof that you have never looked at the IPCC process. Instead of stacking the panel with supporters and discrediting dissent the IPCC has always done the exact opposite. Not only have prominent skeptics and dissenters been invited onto IPCC panels, but they have often been made the head of important panels. One of the most prominent skeptics in the world is Dr. John Christy (who I am sure you all saw in the swindle) and it would be hard to find anyone who has had more influence on the IPCC then him. He was the lead author in 2001 for crying out loud, along with being a major contributor in the other three IPCC reports. It is actually hard to find a skeptical working scientist in the field who has not been part of the IPCC process. The IPCC gives skeptics too much weight, not too little. If a denier was actually willing to look at the IPCC reports they would see that. But why look at the report when instead you can get your information for a conspiracy site?

Brian in Calgary said...

If Gore's award was in a new category about the environment, the prize committee could justify its choice. I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd understand it. But for peace? I wasn't a great fan of his, but Lester Pearson must be rolling in his grave at the further cheapening of his peace prize.

Möbius said...

I think Gore should run for President. It would screw over Hilary, and if he won, he might acutally have to implement some of his ideas.

I suspect it would be like the Libs signing Kyoto, then ignoring it as long as possible....

Möbius said...

Hey Joanne!

You're moderating now, just like Cherniak. Are you afraid I might say ca-ca poo-poo?

:)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Are you afraid I might say ca-ca poo-poo?

No, I've said far worse today. Just trying to keep out the trolls.