Friday, October 12, 2007

Inconvenient happenings

The freaque waves news front has returned to quiescent once again, the occurrences of the freaque waves in the open ocean, nearshore, and onshore regions have thankfully not interfering with human lives as we hope where it should always stay.

Today I would like to call attention to two recent news items That has strangely been ignored by the "drive-by" main stream media.

The first one was in the October 7, 2007 Washington Post, Page B01, an article entitled "Chill out" written by the Danish Economist Bjorn Lomborg, in which he reported the case which a new study shown that the Kangerlussuaq glacier of Greenland is growing.

The other one was an ESA (European Space Agency) news release on october 3, 2007 reporting that "The ozone hole over Antarctica has shrunk 30 percent as compared to last year's record size."
Both cases are exciting scientific results, but unless you are closely following and searching the news on the internet, you are unlikely to be informed by the "usual suspects" of your news sources. That is unfortunate. In Lomborg's article he has this to say:

We have to rediscover the middle ground, where we can have a sensible conversation. We shouldn't ignore climate change or the policies that could attack it. But we should be honest about the shortcomings and costs of those policies, as well as the benefits.

I boldfaced the one beautiful English word, honest, that seems to have been missing from our news source for some time now. What a pity! Not only the word has not been used positively from the news media or understandably the political arena, the word has not been quit popular among the main stream scientists either. Who cares about honesty as long as fundings can continue to pouring in!

It is of interest, may be just poetic justice, that this two piece of important happenings preceedes today's announcement of Nobel Peace prize to IPCC and Albert Arnold Gore Jr.
"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".
What they failed to mention is the measures their experts laid out to counteract the changes are not working, and the nature quietly reduced the ozone hole by 30 percent and no one knows why! It can't be happening!

A final point, in the Nobel foundation announcement the peace prize is awarded to IPCC first and Albert Arnold Gore Jr. second. You may think that's a mistake, because what your favorate MSM reporter have told you was the other way round.

I am wondering what Dr. Alfred Nobel might think about all these!


Here's what I found from Rush's web here:

Regarding what Dr. Nobel might think, this article in have shed some light:

Alfred Nobel felt horrible about the uses to which his invention -- dynamite -- was put. So he endowed the Nobel Peace Prize and instructed that it go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Al Gore has done exactly none of those things.

Gore, however, did write a book and make a film about global warming. He has become the second environmental activist to win the peace prize in the past four years. Wangari Muta Maathai won it in 2004 for planting trees.

Thus we have indisputable confirmation that the Nobel Peace Prize is no longer a serious international award. In 1994 the five Norwegian politicians who award the prize gave it to the murdering thug Yasser Arafat. Two years before that they gave it to literary fraud Rigoberta Menchu, whose autobiography was largely fabricated. (An example: The brother she supposedly watched die of malnutrition was later found by a New York Times reporter to be very much alive and well.)

On Friday the prize was given to Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change. Two days before, a British judge ruled that Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," contained so many errors (read: lies) that it could be shown in British public schools only if accompanied by a fact sheet correcting the errors.

The Nobel Peace Prize is worse than a joke. It's a fraud. It is such a transparent fraud that the five Norwegian politicians who award it have been reduced to defending their decision by concocting elaborate rationalizations. This year they laughably claimed that Gore deserves the prize because, well, global climate change" may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources," and "there may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars."

It is sad to think the Nobel Peace Prize is "worse than a joke." But I really don't think Dr. Nobel have any strong ground to disagree. Especially when a British judge considers that Gore's film is full of errors. By the way, that's another news item the drive-by media did not allow American to hear or read -- by not reporting it.

Update II:

This New Scientist article: "Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth: Unscientific?" explained that:
. . . over in the UK, a judge criticised Al Gore's Oscar-winning movie An Inconvenient Truth for a series of inaccuracies. The ruling concludes a case brought to the UK High Court by Stuart Dimmock, a parent of two who was concerned to find that the UK Department for Education and Skills had distributed a copy of Gore's film to every state secondary school in the UK.

He argued that the film was political material, had no place in the classroom, and that its distribution to schools should be made illegal. Moreover, his legal team pointed out a list of alleged scientifically inaccuracies in the film.

The judge, Justice Burton, declined to make it illegal. In his ruling, however, he says Gore committed nine counts of scientific inaccuracy.
That's one impressive judge. Read all the details in the article. Note that the title of the article has a question mark on "unscientific". The author, Catherine Brahic, will not provide an answer. In the sea of political correctness, and probably being brain-washed by Algore's "overwhelming number of scientists," may be it's clever for New Scientist not to take a position.

No comments: