A Christian Eye on Politics
From the BBC News website on October 12th 2007 comes this report:
"Climate change campaigner Al Gore and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
The committee said they had been chosen for "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change.
Mr Gore, 59, was vice-president under Bill Clinton and has since devoted his efforts to environmental campaigning.
The UN's panel of 3,000 scientists is the top authority on global warming."
Controversial Al Gore, a major US Democrat politician, has been steeping himself in 'climate change' issues for the last few years. Recently his 'An Inconvenient Truth,' an envoronmentalist propaganda video, has come under heavy attack in the UK because of its plain reliance on politics, emotion and pseudo-science, and with a speaker in the British High Court describing it as containing "serious scientific inaccuracies." Yet now Gore and his UN left-wing liberal environmentalist cohorts have landed a Nobel Peace Prize. Quite amazing!
On 28th September, the following report appeared in the 24dash.com British public sector news site,
'Al Gore's climate change documentary, 'An Inconvenient Truth' was described in the British High Court today as containing "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush."
The attack came as father-of-two Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor and a member of The New Party, challenged the Government's decision to provide the film to every secondary school in England.
Paul Downes, appearing for Mr Dimmock, 45, said that, even though the film had already been distributed and may have been shown to pupils, it was not too late for the High Court to declare the (UK) Government had acted unlawfully and quash the decision to authorise distribution.
The project was announced in February by the Government's education and environment departments.
It was planned that the DVD would go to more than 3,500 secondary schools in England as part of a "sustainable schools year of action." The then Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, said at the launch that influencing the opinions of children was crucial to developing a long-term view on the environment among the public.
But today Mr Downes told Mr Justice Burton, sitting at London's High Court: "Given the serious inaccuracies in the film and the misrepresentations it contains, the film is irredeemable."'
(http://www.24dash.com/news/58/28068/index.htm).
Mr Downes made it plain to the court that he was seeking to persuade them that the film constituted, "just over half scientific material, 30% pure politics and about 20% sentimental mush - mush there to soften up the viewer for persuasion."
Mr Downes was making the point that such biased propaganda should not be going into British schools and affecting impressionable young minds. He described the scientific part of the video thus, "the majority of the arguments advanced are false, or falsely exaggerated on the basis of the Government's own evidence."
He also dismissed the strength and efficacy of the 'guidance notes' which accompany the film pack.
Before we leave this topic, we must just refer to the BBC report with which this article commences. The BBC reporter wrote, "...The UN's panel of 3,000 scientists is the top authority on global warming." We should just point out that it was obviously too much of a temptation for a BBC news reporter - undoubtedly hyped-up to the heavens with such obese global warming hysteriaism - to resist making such an over-inflated comment! We should understand two things here:
1. No meaningful consultation 'panel' can ever possibly contain several thousand people! Neither can any such "panel" of such a monstrous size ever have unanimous agreement on every point right across the board. Here is an obvious case of vote-taking in order to arrive at a compromised and agreed general principle. Moreover, potentially dissenting voices are always put under great pressure to conform to the whole in such circumstances, this pressure could well include economic pressure where such "UN scientists" are actually within the employ of the UN! (Possibly all of them).
2. To state that such a group, or "panel" is "the top authority on global warming," is such a subjective comment that it should immediately be rejected as being ludicrously and prejudicially weighted (the BBC, once so objective, is now steeped in such prejudicial comments). All one can say is that the present UN position is currently the most influential. In fact, it appears that more and more scientists and climatologists every week are rejecting the current over-hype.
Yet there is nothing new about such "information" being fed to the young and impressionable in the guise of 'proven science.' Macro-Evolution has been taught in schools and colleges right across the civilised world for over a hundred years even though 'macro-evolution' (humankind has descended from apes), has always been an anti-God philosophy which departed from solid, observable and empirical science a very long time ago.
The Christian Hawk, October 13th, 2007.