Pyramid Comment

This journal takes an alternative view on current affairs and other subjects. The approach is likely to be contentious and is arguably speculative. The content of any article is also a reminder of the status of those affairs at that date. All comments have been disabled. Any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Nobel Peace Award In Defense Of A Lie

The Nobel Peace Prize goes to Gore (biography) and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). This is bad news. Very sinister and very bad news and personally I am absolutely incensed at this award being given. The game seems to be almost complete and inveigling politics into science in such a crude way is extremely worrying. In fact, it's an absolute disgrace. Gore is a politician (former US vice-president) and science has been hijacked.

Unnoticed

The message is clear: even though unproven it is now written in stone that climate change is man made. This is highly dangerous political propaganda. Dangerous since misdirection is clearly promoted. Endorsement with a Nobel Peace Prize will convince a great many people that it is true.

Unproven

  • An interesting reminder of an earlier attitude of the diplomatic politician took place in 2000 during a campaign stop at an Altoona paper mill. Gore, as the presidential contender, launched into an unexpected 40-minute tirade against the "not-so-great state of Pennsylvania," calling it "the nation's armpit" and "a total hellhole."
“Listen, I’m a politician, which means I’m a
cheat and a liar and when I’m not kissing
babies I’m stealing their lollipops.”

Such was the standing and integrity of the once venerable Nobel committee who select and approve such awards. The logic in Science never entered the equation, but suddenly the unproven is mysteriously proven. And there is no doubt about the truth of it all. And it has all been rushed through in the appallingly crude attempt to railroad opinion. Even the Oscar 'award' must be placed under a heavy black cloud. Engineering the outcome would be the best outcome and guarantee a desired result. Why else would such awards be made if the claims it allegedly supports are unproven? Alfred Nobel should be turning in his grave now that the original prize (created over 100 years ago) has been maligned in such a way. The other recipients of this prize

"for outstanding achievements in
physics, chemistry, medicine,
literature, and for...

...work in peace"

have been effectively rubbished through its corruption for political ends.

And the potential for making shedloads of money.

Clearly, the Nobel Prize Committee (and who are these anonymous people?) is convinced that the message MUST be shouted loudly even though the case is not proven. Or in fact not widely accepted.

The citation said: "His strong committment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

So, what have Gore's efforts done to further any quests for peace?

Nothing
No connection

But it does place the likes of Gore alongside Mother Theresa. And the credibility of the Nobel Prize Award system has been put into very deep jeopardy. Probably irreparably damaged by this very, very serious and quite pathetic underestimation of peoples' intelligence.

What happens now? Gore will give (allegedly) his award (£375,000) to the Alliance for Climate Protection. But...

...$£trillions will be spent chasing the end of the rainbow. And many of those $£trillions will probably be made by companies meddling in the future of humankind. What financial interest does Gore and Co, for example, have in this marketplace? The inconvenient truth is that it's a probable lie. The statement that it is a lie cannot be made since it is all unproven.

However, to say it's truth is as much a litigious statement as to say it's a lie. Like those who object violently or otherwise to such statements as "God doesn't exist", must first prove that God does exist to provide any basis for straightforward argument. Attempts to debunk an alleged conspiracy theory require no evidence, but to suggest a reasonable and articulate alternative view meets with just ridicule and contempt. The existence of a God is not denied, but there is absolutely nothing to support the existence of a real being. There also exists a failure to field any alternative argument. Statements of fact, but devoid of any evidence should never last. This is the paradox concerning religion.

Blind faith. Though there's none so absolutely blind as those that will not see. Or so deaf that they will not hear.