Interesting controversy surrounds 2008 US presidential candidate, Al Gore. True, he was awarded this year's Nobel prize based on his work in raising awareness on global warming. But, boy, is that topic controversial! I am not talking about the opinions of average citizen facing average citizen. Top scientists are questioning the accuracy of the data in his presentations and the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", and criticize the choice of Gore for the prize. (Well, the Nobel prize committee can be criticized for a number of their previous blund..., ahem, choices.)
By now most everybody is aware of the fact that the film became subject of legal action in the UK. The courts then found that the film was indeed misleading, pockmarked by inaccuracies, some provable, others questionable, and decided that it carried a fair amount of political propaganda.
If you are one of those who is still itching to read what those inaccuracies they found in the film are, here they are. I lifted them off of the website of the UK New Party, you can visit their site and see the full original article there.
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Now, to return to my own opining again, it does seem rather suspect that all this hoopla arose so conveniently just before Mr Gore's announcement of his entering the electoral race. After all, good publicity or bad, it doesn't really matter. Any publicity is GOOD for the long run (think of Paris Hilton...). I am just wondering whether publicity of this sort is befitting someone who vies for one of the most influential positions in the Western world. If people will turn a blind eye to the inaccuracies and praise (venerate) him for what he represents in the present day cult of "Human Made Environmental Disaster", then what differentiates the environmentalists from the religious?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to create the impression that I reject the idea of man's negative impact on the environment. I am totally for continuing the efforts to clean up our act and clean up the world. Up to now I did not have any intention to question (openly, that is) any claims the environmental movement presented regarding the urgency of the situation, even when observing their political gains and growing clout in some countries. After all, it doesn't hurt to become as clean as possible, as soon as possible. Stepping up the efforts to develop clean, cheap sources of energy, finding solutions to our garbage issues, etc., can only benefit all of us. And if the world will still keep on getting warmer after that, at least we know that it is not our fault. But I do not like to see the issue being hijacked for personal gain.
I am sure Al Gore is not the only one to have resorted to such practices, people are human after all. I am certain that there were other mis-uses anywhere where Green Parties made gains. But his position is too visible. Past US presidents and/or candidates were scrutinized and chastised for things like the smoking of an occasional joint in their distant reckless youth. Shouldn't people scrutinize the methods presidential candidates use to gain people's sympathy and support? And if irregularities are found, shouldn't they be responsible for them?
I cannot help making a small parallel between this case and a news item I read a couple of days ago about an applicant for Canadian citizenship, Parminder Singh Saini, who in his youth hijacked an airplane, was convicted, served 10 years in jail, eventually gaining full pardon for his past actions. Thirteen years ago he claimed refugee status in Canada and was accepted. He apparently is a "model citizen" now, a lawyer about to pass his bar exam, by all accounts a person who could do a lot of good work in and for Canada. The problem is that he came here under an assumed name, hiding his past. If anyone asked my modest little person to pass judgment over him, I would say that he must be held responsible for the means he used in order to gain entry into Canada. He has to be rejected now, and advised that he should go back to India and apply under his real name. Past can be forgiven, people can redeem themselves by proving their present worth. But the old Jesuit motto, "goals justify the means by which they are attained", does not, should not hold anymore.
Where do I see any connection between his case and the Gore case, you ask? Mr Gore IS a model citizen, he does not have a spotty past in need of redemption. But political candidates must be also scrutinized for the means they use to get where they want to be!
No comments:
Post a Comment