The Sentinel

Issue date: 11/15/07 Section: Commentary

Media Credit: http://uglydemocrats.com

Al Gore recently won half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, and I can't think of a more deserving recipient. He now joins an exalted group of true visionaries such as terrorist Yassir Arafat (Class of 1994) - one of the very few laureates directly responsible for the deaths of innocent women and children. Jimmy Carter (2002), a terror apologist and hater of all things Jewish, is surely delighted to welcome Al into the fold. Perhaps Kofi Annan (2001), the Secretary General who oversaw the U.N. during the largest monetary (oil-for-food) scandal in human history, could give Al a few tips on how to spend the prize money. Or Rigoberta Menchu (1992, who recently spoke here at Ohio State) could make up a new story on how her brother was killed by global warming in order to spread the word.

While I don't begrudge Gore's being awarded the prize (in the same way I don't begrudge his Oscar), I do question the wisdom of awarding the other half of the prize to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee is comprised of five people: a professor of medicine, a professor of theology (and a member of the Socialist Left party), a director of cultural heritage, a political advisor, and a public affairs advisor. Imagine one of them saying during the selection process, "Perhaps we should evaluate the IPCC's scientific work before handing them the award." The resulting laughter would have knocked them out of their chairs.

Had the committee actually evaluated the science, they would have noticed some glaring issues. The IPCC, for example, has been around for almost 20 years but has virtually ignored the role of water as a greenhouse gas even though it accounts for nearly 80% of the greenhouse effect. Their reports also largely ignore the role of the sun, even though it is our primary source of energy and is the primary driver of climate.

And why do they ignore these vastly important issues? Apparently it is "too complicated" to be included in their reports. Instead, they place all of their faith in ever more complicated computer models. And, surely by mere coincidence, the more these models are massaged, the more match the politically correct answer: that man is evil.

Had the Nobel Committee delayed the awarding ceremony by just a few weeks, they would have had time to evaluate some recent, fact-riddled news items:

Continued...

Page 1 of 3 next >

Article Tools