Noble Laureate Gore: The Reaction in Scandinavia
Michael C. Moynihan | October 12, 2007, 1:25pm
Mostly praise from commenters in the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian media at the decision to award the Peace Prize to former veep Al Gore. Børge Brende, a conservative member of parliament and former Minister of the Environment, who, along with Heidi Sørensen, a member of parliament for the Socialist Left, nominated Al Gore for the prize, told Norwegian media that today "was a big day for the climate." The climate is reportedly thrilled. Ola Mattsson, general secretary of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, disagreed, grumbling to Sweden's TV4 that his group "think it's a little strange to give the prize to a former American vice president." A Swedish vice president, if such a thing existed, would be quite a different story. "The purpose of the prize," said Mattsson, "is to reward people who work for disarmament, and in this context Al Gore has not done anything big for the world." The Danish news website 180 Degrees is the first to interview "skeptical environmentalist" Bjørn Lomborg, who says that awarding the Peace Prize to Gore amounts to nothing more than "political propaganda."
But the best reaction comes from Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute Geir Lundestad, who told Swedish television that Gore's receiving the prize is great...for the Norwegian Nobel Committee: "Its best [if the prize is given to] one person—an organization doesn't arouse as much publicity. But the combination of international politics and a single person is a good one, and it gives us a lot of attention." (emphasis added)
Charles Paul Freund on the Danish academy's campaign against Lomborg here; Ron Bailey's review of The Skeptical Environmentalist here.
I make fun of Al Gore's god-awful book here.
(Tip of the cap to Billy)
joe | October 13, 2007, 9:19am | #
Syloson of Samsos,
In today's Boston Globe, Lomborg writes:
Gore told the world in his Academy Award-winning movie to expect 20-foot sea-level rises over this century. He ignores the findings of the Nobel co-winners (the IPCC), who conclude that sea-levels will rise between only a half-foot and two feet over this century, with their best expectation being about one foot.
I count two distinct lies: what Gore "told people to expect," what the IPCC concluded about sea level rise. Gore does not tell anyone to "expect" a 20 foot sea level rise; he says that would be the effect of Greenland's ice melting entirely, which is true. He presents Greenland ice-melt as an unknown, then describes what would happen in the worst-case scenario, presenting it as the worst-case scenario.
And rather than this representing Gore "ignoring" the IPCC, the scientists at the IPCC says the same thing - IF Greenland's ice melts, there would be a rise of sea levels up to 20 feet. The IPCC also says, as Gore reports, that they do not know how much melting is going to occur in Greenland, and the catasthophic meling is a possible, though extreme, scenario.
Lomborg lied about what Gore said. He lied about what the IPCC said. Deliberate misrepresentation of the facts in order to slamm Gore and push a political agenda.
And then there's this bit: "While we worry about the far-off" bzzt, far-off? Most climate scientists and biologists report that effects are already being felt "...effects of climate change, we do nothing to deal with issues facing the planet today."
An obvious false dilemma, and an obviously false statement. We do quite a bit to deal with issues facing the planet today, even as we take steps to reduce warming.
Deliberate misrepresentations, flawed and manipulative logic. This is not an honest person.
Now someone waive some smelling salts under Moynihan's nose.
