I'm shamed to be Norwegian..(Al gore gets the peace prize)

The PDF below is the decision by the British High Court. Please use the search function on the following: "exaggeration," "apocalyptic vision," "distinctly alarmist" and "one-sided. You will find that the high court used them all in the decision regarding Algore's film.


http://downloads.heartland.org/22161.pdf

So yes the lefty media doesn't want the folks to know.

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

I don't understand what the problem is. There have been other than peace makers recieving for years if thats what the problem is.

indeed even the inventor of the machine gun that killed millions on the western front got a nobel prize if he can why not big AL

Originally Posted by micky1up

indeed even the inventor of the machine gun that killed millions on the western front got a nobel prize if he can why not big AL

Because 'big AL's' is based on untruths. The machine gun is based on the truth.

I suspect untruths have and will kill more people than the machine gun ever has, or ever will.

[bradclark1]

It amazes me that depending on which way you lean to find out what this judge actually said. I tried reading the actual document but could not read the whole thing as it's a pretty boring thing to read. I'll supply links that to me most closely resembles what the judge stated.
I use quotes.

The judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.
In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.
These say teachers should point out controversial or disputed sections.
................................
"It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/7037671.stm

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2633838.ece

The judge is also very clear about the film being used as a political programme. By extrapulation the entire global warming/climate change movement is political.

You should read the entire text. You will find that the decision was very narrow in its scope but does provide precedence for future challanges to global warming/climate change what ever the left is calling it today.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

The most useless Nobel prize there is.

Well, it might be more useful if the people who won it actually did what Nobel said:

...to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/w...estamente.html

Originally Posted by micky1up

indeed even the inventor of the machine gun that killed millions on the western front got a nobel prize if he can why not big AL

Well, since the man who invented dynamite also created the prize...
http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/b...ork/index.html

[bradclark1]

The judge is also very clear about the film being used as a political programme. By extrapulation the entire global warming/climate change movement is political.

Did you forget the quotes again or do you always spell program in the european manner? By virtue of the subject matter the film is political. Just so we get the judges meaning of the term 'political' it is 'based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives' so you can toss a dime and call on the term 'extrapulation'. He said many claims in the film was fully backed up by the weight of science.

You should read the entire text. You will find that the decision was very narrow in its scope but does provide precedence for future challanges to global warming/climate change what ever the left is calling it today.

By your comment above I'd say you haven't read the entire text. I'll send you a pdf of the court document if you want. It's only 367k. I said I didn't read all of it, I did however read most of it.
It doesn't matter as far as precedence goes. Facts are facts and the judge backs the main scientific facts of global warming. No word games can change whats a fact and the right can't change that.

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

To your intense surprise, I'm happy with this

Me too

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Well, it might be more useful if the people who won it actually did what Nobel said:

http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/w...estamente.html

These parts are all the way at the bottom so according to that all the non peace prizes are legit.

Alfred Nobel's greatness lay in his ability to combine the penetrating mind of the scientist and inventor with the forward-looking dynamism of the industrialist. Nobel was very interested in social and peace-related issues and held what were considered radical views in his era. He had a great interest in literature and wrote his own poetry and dramatic works. The Nobel Prizes became an extension and a fulfillment of his lifetime interests.
When his will was opened it came as a surprise that his fortune was to be used for Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace. The executors of his will were two young engineers, Ragnar Sohlman and Rudolf Lilljequist. They set about forming the Nobel Foundation as an organization to take care of the financial assets left by Nobel for this purpose and to coordinate the work of the Prize-Awarding Institutions. This was not without its difficulties since the will was contested by relatives and questioned by authorities in various countries.

[bradclark1]

For those curious this is a condensed finding that I extracted from 17 pages of findings.

I viewed the film at the parties’ request. Although I can only express an opinion as a viewer rather than as a judge, it is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film. It is built round the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming. It is now common ground that
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Dimmock v SS for Education and Skills it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political. Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming, and that there is a powerful case that such global warming is caused by man, but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out. Paul Downes, using persuasive force almost equivalent to that of Mr Gore, has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies, which he illustrates in paragraph 30 of his skeleton argument:

“(i) Fiscal policy and the way that a whole variety of activities
are taxed, including fuel consumption, travel and
manufacturing …
(ii) Investment policy and the way that governments encourage
directly and indirectly various forms of activity.
(iii) Energy policy and the fuels (in particular nuclear)
employed for the future.
(iv) Foreign policy and the relationship held with nations that
consume and/or produce carbon-based fuels.”

So that settles what is meant by the term 'political'.

“The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each
of which is very well supported by research published in
respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the
latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising
significantly over the past half century and are likely to
continue to rise (“climate change”);
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made
emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide
(“greenhouse gases”);
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant
adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and
governments can take which will help to reduce climate
change or mitigate its effects.”

These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), 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.
I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that:
“Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”

In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters – 9 in all – upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the ‘errors’ in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 ‘errors’ that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant’s case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott.

The ‘Errors’
1. ‘Error’ 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.
2. ‘Error’ 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.
3. ‘Error’ 18: Shutting down of the “Ocean Conveyor”.
4. ‘Error’ 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and intemperature, by reference to two graphs.
5. ‘Error’ 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.
6. ‘Error’ 16: Lake Chad etc
8. ‘Error’ 15: Death of polar bears.
9. ‘Error’ 13: Coral reefs.

The actual document states what the errors were I didn't add them because of length.
#8 Death of polar bears by drowning mystifies me why Gore used that instead of publicly available data like below.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.html
Today, polar bear populations are facing threats previously unprecedented during recorded history in the Arctic. Recent climate change scenarios based upon modeling of climate trend data predict that the Arctic region will experience major changes in the upcoming decades. On the most drastic end of the spectrum one model predicts that the Arctic basin may be void of ice within 50 years. Other models have shown that ice thickness has decreased by 40% during the past 30 years and the average annual extent of ice coverage in the polar region has diminished substantially, with an average annual reduction of over 1 million square kilometers

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0907224237.htm
Future reduction of sea ice in the Arctic could result in a loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years according to a series of studies just released by the U.S. Geological Survey.

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Because 'big AL's' is based on untruths. The machine gun is based on the truth.

I suspect untruths have and will kill more people than the machine gun ever has, or ever will.

wrong!

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by micky1up

wrong!

"I will not invade Czechoslovakia!"

(It's been a while since the appeasement parade )

[Sea Demon]

So Al Gore, who is an obvious fraud got the worthless Nobel prize. Big deal. I lost total repsect for this prize when Yasser Arafat got it. This Nobel prize is now used to push progressive agendas. It's actually a shame. It used to be noteworthy once upon a time ago to win this. But I also find the following interesting....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...nvenient-truth

Inaccuracies in Gore's film???? You don't say.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gore's+prize%3A+A+fraud+on+t he+people&articleId=c55c0e3e-f569-4b50-83f6-8431bde279dd

The Nobel Peace Prize 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." And Gore has exactly none of those things. Really? That's interesting... :hmm:


http://www.smh.com.au/news/environme...696238792.html

A meteorologist says Gore doesn't know what the hell he's talking about???!?!

Kid's are getting brainwashed???? You don't say.

[bradclark1]

So Al Gore, who is an obvious fraud got the worthless Nobel prize. Big deal. I lost total repsect for this prize when Yasser Arafat got it. This Nobel prize is now used to push progressive agendas. It's actually a shame. It used to be noteworthy once upon a time ago to win this. But I also find the following interesting....
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...nvenient-truth

Seems these people have selective editing techniques. This is from the link supplied by these people.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...pe_on_climate/
DNA hints warm era didn't melt entire cap
Scientists not involved in the study cautioned, however, that current climate change is so driven by pollution from power plants, industry, and other human activity that it is nearly impossible to draw a meaningful conclusion about the durability of Greenland's ice.
"Whatever occurred in the past almost surely occurred much more slowly," said Raymond S. Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. "Human activity is pushing warming at a much faster rate than in the past. Change is occurring in decades or centuries, not over millennia."

Onto the next.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gore's+prize%3A+A+fraud+on+t he+people&articleId=c55c0e3e-f569-4b50-83f6-8431bde279dd
The Nobel Peace Prize 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." And Gore has exactly none of those things. Really? That's interesting...

Seems these people are selective also

http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/w...estamente.html
Alfred Nobel's greatness lay in his ability to combine the penetrating mind of the scientist and inventor with the forward-looking dynamism of the industrialist. Nobel was very interested in social and peace-related issues and held what were considered radical views in his era. He had a great interest in literature and wrote his own poetry and dramatic works. The Nobel Prizes became an extension and a fulfillment of his lifetime interests.
When his will was opened it came as a surprise that his fortune was to be used for Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace. The executors of his will were two young engineers, Ragnar Sohlman and Rudolf Lilljequist. They set about forming the Nobel Foundation as an organization to take care of the financial assets left by Nobel for this purpose and to coordinate the work of the Prize-Awarding Institutions. This was not without its difficulties since the will was contested by relatives and questioned by authorities in various countries.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environme...696238792.html
A meteorologist says Gore doesn't know what the hell he's talking about???!?!
Kid's are getting brainwashed???? You don't say.

Sorry again. Not what the judge said. I could email a pdf of the courts findings if you would like.

“The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each
of which is very well supported by research published in
respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the
latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising
significantly over the past half century and are likely to
continue to rise (“climate change”);
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made
emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide
(“greenhouse gases”);
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant
adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and
governments can take which will help to reduce climate
change or mitigate its effects.”

[Sea Demon]

Same thing here. No proof or consensus on the man-made apocalyptic "global warming" madness...er...scenarios. And nothing you posted proves Gore deserves the award as intended by it's founders. You missed the whole point of what I posted entirely. Debunk what I had with things that I can just as easily debunk with something else later. No consensus, and it seems Gore's film is an inaccurate piece of work. Piece of something else I might add...