Et tu, Gorus?

Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and even more surprising, the IPCC also shares the award.


Why would a committee award such a prestigious prize right on the heels of his documentary being proven inaccurate and prone to exaggerations? Coming in the same week that Marion Jones is asked to return medals to the olympics, one has to wonder if such a fate will befall Gore in the future.

Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is being shown in schools in England. But a recent High Court ruling stated the film must be distributed with caveats to prevent “promoting partisan political views”, citing 9 inaccuracies:

  1. Claims of 20 feet sea level rise from Greenland and Antarctica  – Evidence is that will not melt for millennia. 

  2. Rising sea levels causing inundation of Pacific islands – Court observed that this was a false claim.

  3. Gore claims global warming will “shut down the Ocean Conveyor” – the judge said this was “very unlikely”

  4. Graphs showing CO2 versus temperature over 650,000 years were claimed to be an exact fit – The judge said that, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.

  5. Snowmelt on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming – deforestation reducing moisture into upslope winds is the cause.

  6. The film showed drying Lake Chad, claiming caused by global warming – Court determined that this was false. 

  7. Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming – Court determined it was “not possible” to attribute singular events to global warming. 

  8. Polar bears drowned due to disappearing arctic ice – Gore misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned due to a particularly violent storm. 

  9. Global warming caused species losses including coral reef bleaching – Court found this claim difficult to support.

In light of these inaccuracies, there are now calls emerging for the producers of Gore’s film to return the Oscar for “best documentary”.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 12, 2007 9:00 am

The Nobel has been so political for so long that it is just not credible. While still hard to believe the history of the Nobel shows lots of crazy awards over the years.

Frank K.
October 12, 2007 9:48 am

I think it is very telling that the Nobel Prize in this case is NOT being awarded in the Physics category…

Evan Jones
October 12, 2007 9:55 am

If Gore didn’t get it, they’d probably give it to some dude who blows up school buses.

October 12, 2007 10:29 am

Consider the possibilities:
1. Al Gore gets nominated for Prez.
2. This means his finances will become part of the public record (disclosure).
3. He’ll run on a “green” ticket. His own “green” lifestyle will be brought up.
4. The rest of the candidates will try to “disprove” his movie, bringing out their own experts and scientists to say where his ideas are wrong.
Maybe this is a GOOD thing, after all…

October 12, 2007 11:15 am

You must have missed when the Peace Prize committee awarded one to Yassir Arafat, and another to Jimmy Carter, who did so much for middle-east peace, don’t’cha’know.
In fact, the ideological and philosophical divided in the Nobel committees mirrors the divide between hard science and social science departments at modern universities. One is concerned with facts, statistics and measurable truth, while the other is dominated by liberal ideology grounded in no reality that a scientist would recognize.
When Gore wins the Nobel for Chemistry or Economics for his AGW propaganda, then we should be scared. For now, ehh. Nothing new here.

October 12, 2007 11:18 am

Doesn’t the fact that CO2 is not a forcing function but a lagging indicator of global warming deflate the whole “CO2 causes global warming theory.”
It would seem we have a theory with no proof whatsoever it might be true.
At least the Goracle is getting rich, and I guess after watching his self aggrandizing film, that was in fact the goal all along.
Any one going to ask the Oscars to rescind the “Best Documentary” award, now that the film just propaganda, as ruled by a court.

October 12, 2007 11:54 am

Pardon my ignorance, and the off-topic question, but do we know CO2 levels are increasing atmospherically? Could someone point me to a paper or article dealing with that please? Just trying to inform myself on the basics at this point.

Laurence Sheldon
October 12, 2007 12:15 pm

Why ask “why”?
Le duc Tho. Yassir Arafat. James Earl Carter. on and on.
Perfect fit.
The whole “Nobel” thing is somebody’s guilt trip.
Of no importance to anybody that matters/

Larry Grimm
October 12, 2007 12:22 pm

Geez I hate being petty, but does anyone else think that Gore is looking more and more like the Joker off of Batman?
There have been some shameful Nobel Peace prizes – this is sadly another. Will mankind ever quit falling for doomsday prophets (AKA “profit” in Gore’s case)?

Larry Grimm
October 12, 2007 12:39 pm

Response to ultimate175: Here are some sites to visit. CO2 is increasing in the environment. Whether this is due to the earth’s warming from natural causes (CO2 will rise in response to warming) or whether it is due to man putting CO2 in the air is highly, highly debatable. Don’t quote me, but I believe we have gone from about 250 ppm to 370 ppm in the last century. This is no big deal when one looks at historical levels of CO2.

Stan Needham
October 12, 2007 1:13 pm

What baffles me is what Algore’s efforts to educate the public on the dangers of anthropogenic global warming have to do with world peace. If the Goracle and his acolytes have their way and stop economic development in the third world, it could do more to harm world peace than just about anything I can think of.

October 12, 2007 2:54 pm

It is the intentions that is being rewarded, not the means or the results.

October 12, 2007 2:55 pm

Don’t quote me, but I believe we have gone from about 250 ppm to 370 ppm in the last century. This is no big deal when one looks at historical levels of CO2.

It’s even less of a deal when one considers the radiative forcing capability of CO2. To have the same effect as from 20-280ppm, you’d have to get to 1800ppm. So any potential warming we’ve seen cannot be due to CO2, whether it comes first or lags behind.

Larry Grimm
October 12, 2007 4:40 pm

Response to ultimate175 and Jeff:
U175: if you are new to the climate science issues, Jeff’s (and he is correct) statement may be confusing if you are not familiar with the way radiation interacts with matter. All matter will absorb specific wavelengths of radiation, and not other wavelengths. As an atom absorbs this energy, it becomes excited and will release the energy at different wavelengths. The released energy can go in any direction. The sun (and other solar radiations) bombards the earth with a broad range of wavelengths and some of the energy is reflected back towards the atmosphere/space. CO2, being in the atmsophere, absorbs at a number of different wavelengths. As it releases the energy, some may go back to earth (the greenhouse effect). One aspect that climetologists appear to be missing in their computer models is that there are only a finite number of CO2 molecules in the atmsosphere and therefore only so much energy can be trapped and returned to the earth. Excess earth-radiated energy just heads right out into space.
Gore had it backwards in his film by intimating that CO2 increases preceded global warming throughout earth’s history. The opposite is true: as the earth warms, CO2 levels rise AFTER the earth warms – lagging the warming by about 800 years. As the earth warms, the CO2 principally comes from the oceans, which are a HUGE sink for CO2. This begs the question: if CO2 increases are not driving the earth’s warming, what is?
Folks who are called derogatorily “deniers” generally believe that the earth is warming due to natural processes, e.g. changes in solar radiation, and not due to man’s CO2 contribution to the environment. Proabably all “deniers” recognize the earth has been warming since about 1850 when the earth started coming out of a 400 year little ice age. But the $64,000 question is, “Is man causing greater warming?” When we know so little about what causes weather/climate change, it amazes me that we are even attempting to answer this question at this time. But man is both an arrogant and inquisitive beast so the scientific debate rages. Unfortuantely a lovely science debate has become a nasty political debate with Gore at this forefront. My opinion is that he is another doomsday prophet just following the trail of scads of doomsday prophets in mankind’s history. None have been right yet – we are still here and doing better than our forebearers.

October 12, 2007 6:17 pm

In essence, you’re saying that the end justifies the means, and so all is well.

October 13, 2007 5:49 am

Yeah, why didn’t this fat pig win for science/physics, if his claims are so credible?
Remember his speech, before the ’04 election, when he said of President Bush, “He betrayed this country! HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!?”
If you ask me, it is AlGore who is playing on other’s fears–with lies! I stand by my assertion that this pig should hang, for poisoning young minds.
Disclaimer: By stating that AlGore should hang, I was in no way, shape, or form threatening to do so myself. I am a peace-lovin’, libgressive-hatin’ redneck who loves my God, my wife, my daughter, my dogs, my cats, and my guns.
Okay, I don’t have any guns. But once I return from overseas in four or five years, I intend to purchase some, for my own protection, if we’re still allowed to bear arms under a socialist dictator, Hitlary Clinton.
Disclaimer: By stating the above, I was in no way, shape, or form conceding the ’08 election to Hitlary, but if you believe the pundits, she’s gonna be running the show come January ’09, and I have no faith in our GOP, in its current form, to stop her…

Evan Jones
October 13, 2007 5:52 am

Sometimes the ends justify the means. Sometimes not. It depends–entirely–upon the ends and means.
So glad we cleared that one up!

October 13, 2007 5:56 am

tetris writes:
In essence, you’re saying that the end justifies the means, and so all is well.
The big question is “What are their ends?” They will not decrease the temperature by one degree. They will not prevent nature from being ever changing. They do not pursuit scientific truth.
I think their “ends” is taking money out of our pockets and controlling as much of our lives as possible.
And anyone in the way, well….

M. Jeff
October 13, 2007 9:02 am

The Wall Street Journal today, Opinion page, without mentioning Al Gore, discussed the issue of worthy candidates who were not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
As the WSJ says: “These men and women put their own lives and livelihoods at risk by working to rid the world of violence and oppression. Let us hope they survive the coming year so that the Nobel Prize Committee might consider them for the 2008 award.”

October 13, 2007 2:54 pm

The source in the first post cited 11 errors found by the court. This post cites 9. Do you know why the sources disagree?
I have a way that Gore can make a genuine contribution to peace. He can go to Iran and teach Physics. That should set their nuclear program back by twenty years.

October 13, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: CO2 emissions
It’s debatable, i.e. unknown, how much of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is due to human activities, including, but by no means restricted to, burning of fossil fuels.
However, it doesn’t matter, unless you are a liberal and need something to feel guilty about. Increasing CO2 levels either is or isn’t a problem sufficiently serious we need to do something about it. The source of the CO2 is irrelevant, because every molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere is the same as every other molecule and all contribute equaly to whatever problem might exist (or not as the case may be).
So is increasing CO2 levels a sufficiently serious problem we need to do something about it?
The answer is we don’t know, but it is telling that there is almost no credible scientific evidence directly linking rising CO2 levels to increasing temperatures. In fact, almost all the direct evidence links observed warming to other causes. This absence of evidence for CO2 driven warming is the dog that doesn’t bark in the whole debate, and to be perfectly honest it is something of a mystery why we are not seeing CO2 driven warming.
Doubtless, at some point we will get an answer when the politically motivated fog surrounding the issue clears. My 2c worth is that a negative feedback, perhaps water vapour, largely cancels out the effect of CO2, which is pretty small anyway, less than 1 degree C for the fabled doubling of atmospheric CO2.

October 13, 2007 7:02 pm

The Norwegians (note: not the Swedes who do the more scientific stuff) on the Nobel Peace Prize Committee jumped the shark with that Arafat thing some time ago. Nothing to see here, just move along.

Bob Weber
October 16, 2007 12:50 am

For a detailed description of the errors in Gore’s AIT read

October 16, 2007 6:50 pm

Most of these “inaccuracies” in themselves seem very controversial still. Judging by the raw scientific data presented that I have double checked, and its alignment with other sources, Gore and “Inconvenient Truth” do have a truly alarming message. I take it as a measure of progress in awareness that there are only NINE contested points out of the hundreds of examples that are cited in the feature length piece.
— Arf.

Evan Jones
October 17, 2007 8:06 am

Get a load of this:
One advantage that may come out of this travesty is a more public demand for data and methods!

Evan Jones
October 17, 2007 8:20 am

Here’s Gray’s complete letter.
Note the comments on the surface statons, Rev. Your work has not gone unnoticed!

October 18, 2007 5:15 am

You know what , Rev?
The judge left out the claim by Gore that American cars can’t be sold in China, due to not meeting their strict environmental standards.
That was a rather obvious goof.
Also his claim that his science teacher who taught that South America and Africa never fit together in the dim past, he is not President Bush’s science advisor, but that was mostly told to his nutroot hand picked studio audience to get a cheap laugh, and break the tension of an hour of the full bore goracle in his bully pulpit.
There’s only so much fire and brimstone, even an acolyte can stomach.

Reba Miller
October 26, 2007 8:55 pm

Not a brainy broad, this subject is a passion of my husband’s and he sent me here. Hope this lifts some of your spirits…our 9 year old daughter had a science paper to present ( any subject ). Out of 22 other children she presented her findings that global warming is a bunch of hype. At least 11 of the class made presentations decrying the possible extinction of the polar bears. Hope that you are as proud as I am that there are some children that have parents that are paying attention. ( mainly her Dad )
This “global warming” hype is not helping the education of our young ones. One day it is this and the next it is that. Pardon my ‘ domestic-like’ comments into this forum . Fear is a mind killer especially when most of our public is glued to the “boob tube”. I am not brainy but I do indeed love the TRUTH of true science. Nerds have always been cool in my book ! Ha !

Evan Jones
October 27, 2007 1:42 pm

Interesting. I am gratified and yet not terribly surprised.
And maybe this is not so bad a lesson for the kiddies, either. They have been presented with a piece of advocacy shot through with very serious, and easily auditable errors. Throw in large and equal servings of surety and sanctimony, and this is bound to produce an intellectual counterreaction.
I think, overall, I am pleased that the kids are witness to this spectacle.
In later years, they will remember their trepidation, the somber, angry, or near-tearful attitude of their instructors. They will remember the abrupt intrusion of the political debate into their classrooms.
And if, as I suspect, the base measurement data is badly off-key and scandalously adjusted, they will, in later years, cast a jaundiced eye when some as-yet-unknown, similarly poorly supported end-of-the-world scenario is introduced and say, “Oh, yeah? Show me.”
I only hope that the wealth destroyed or never produced as a result of this intellectual-faith-based meltdown will not result in the deaths by disease and malnutrition of too many thousands of nine-year-old girls in poverty-stricken areas of the world. That is the tragedy which brings out my own sanctimony, but I can’t and won’t help it.
Tell, me, how did the teachers react to your daughter and the other kids? How did the other kids react?

Reba Miller
October 27, 2007 9:38 pm

The reaction from her fellow students was amazing !! They wanted to know more so much that the questions came in too quickly, so much that the teacher had to “calm” them down. Her time allotment went over 15 minutes . Her science teacher did not discredit her theory. ( Paideia school ) All in all , I think a seed was planted in those children’s minds ….hope that all TRUE science teachers actively search for the TRUTH to spark the growing, expanding brains of our future….our children.

Evan Jones
October 28, 2007 9:26 am

And let the chips fall where they may! That’s Science.
On the face of it, I’d be surprised if there weren’t some degree of warming in the 20th Century as a result of bounceback from the nadir of the Little Ice Age, some 300 years back.
I also fully agree that the temperature rose during the 1980s and 90s. But a good part of those measurements may have been a result of the exurban creep (ACs, asphalt, buildings, malls, other heat sinks) and that hasn’t been accounted for.
Besides, this is, itself, “bounceback” from the “Eenie-Weenie Ice Age” from 1940 to the earlly 80s, exactly the point when CO2 output took off.
And, of course, in the last 10 years, the temperature has been “jig-jag flat” in spite of a 5% increase in CO2 output.
The graphs your daughter sees don’t show this because they use multi-year averaging, a method that makes “it goes up-and-then-down” look like “it goes up and stays there”. Or “it-goes-up-and-stays-there” look like “it-just-keeps-going-up”
Multi-year averaging IS important. It smoothes the outliers, and can indicate longterm (past) trends. But not to the exclusion of the year-by-year data. All the IPCC stuf that shows a continually increasing trend line over the last decade is a mere stitistical artifact .
Conclusion? Maybe temeperatures are up, maybe they are not. The Margins of Error and Statistical Snow dwarf the half-a-degree delta we all squawk about. In this sense, I am a “true denier”. Not only do I question man’s role, but I actually question the measurements themselves. Until the surface stations in the US AND the rest of the world have been CAREFULLY audited, I will remain skeptical. (No true liberal could do otherwise.)
Not until the audit is complete will we know how much of 20-century GW is “real” and how much is an artifact of continually increasing exurban creep and (astounding) microsite violations.
Your daughter will be told that oversampling cures all ills. But, oversampling won’t feed the bulldog, here, because the adjustment skew is all in one direction–to the warm.
Keep up the good work. All we want is the truth. If it’s warmer, it’s warmer. But if it ain’t, it ain’t! Answer still To Be Determined . . .

Evan Jones
October 28, 2007 9:31 am

Glad you found this blog. Stick around.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights