Global warming scare tactics help Gore score Nobel

By Freedom New Mexico

Former Vice President Al Gore, who says he “used to be the next president of the United States,” has won the Nobel Peace Prize for advancing scary half-truths, flat-out errors and politically inspired schemes about global warming.

We congratulate Gore and hope it’s some personal consolation.

Nevertheless, we’re uninspired as Gore takes his place along side Yasser Arafat and Kofi Annan, similarly honored with credentials of similar substance.

As for Gore’s campaign to scare the dickens out of everyone on Earth, we’re pleased to see reality catching up to his hype. The day before the prize was announced, an English judge had something to say about Gore’s crowning achievement, his documentary film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” that claims because of global warming, “Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb.”

The judge said the movie has nine major errors. Now there’s an inconvenient truth.

The errors “arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of (Gore’s) political thesis,” said High Court Judge Michael Burton. He ruled teachers must alert children to the errors.

The judge said Gore is wrong to claim global warming will cause sea levels to rise 20 feet and that increases in CO2 precede warming when they come afterward.

Inconvenient truths don’t stop there.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank, has compiled point-by-point refutations of Gore’s hype and alarmism.

“Nearly every significant statement that Vice President Gore makes regarding climate science and climate policy is either one-sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative or wrong,” says CEI environmental policy expert Marlo Lewis.

Otherwise, nice job Mr. Gore.

Global warming alarmism serves those opposing free-market economics and its fossil-fuel reliance and those seeking power and to profit by gaming the system once they force rule changes.

Neither motive is in most peoples’ interests.

The Kyoto Protocol, which would force nations to drastically reduce CO2 emissions, if enforced would reduce projected temperatures about one degree over 100 years while — and this is not exaggeration — dampening and devastating economies worldwide.

Worse, Gore completely ignores the benefits of a warming climate. Environmental author Bjorn Lomborg notes more lives would be saved, more crops grown and generally more benefits received with warmer temperatures.

Gore’s award will spur more alarmist momentum. To balance the scales, we recommend CEI’s “A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth” at www.cei.org and the book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism” by CEI senior fellow Christopher Horner.