Cinnamon Stillwell

I’m the West Coast representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. I was a political columnist for (San Francisco Chronicle online) from 2004-2008. I've written for the Algemeiner, Daily Caller, Washington Examiner, Independent Journal Review, American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine, Jihad Watch, Family Security Matters, Accuracy In Media, Newsbusters, Israel National News, Jewish Press, J-The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, and many others.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Gore's Nobel Symptomatic of Larger Trend: The Politicization of Awards

When the news arrived that former vice president and prophet of environmental doom Al Gore was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his film, An Inconvenient Truth, it resulted in little more than a cynical shrug from those of us long accustomed to the politicization of award-giving. The fact that the Nobel was shared with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only added to the air of predictability surrounding it all.

Indeed, I wrote about the topic earlier this year in an SFGate column titled, "When Awards Become Politicized" and, in the process, made the case that the awarding of honors such as the Grammy's, the Academy Awards, the Pulitzer Prize, and, above all else, the Nobel Peace Prize had become transparently political and, invariably, tilted towards the left side of the spectrum.

Past Nobel Peace Prize laureates prove the point. The few choice cases I included were the corrupt and ineffectual United Nations itself, its less than effective or peaceful peacekeeping forces, compromised former UN secretary general Kofi Annan, dictator-appeasing former president Jimmy Carter, and master terrorist Yasser Arafat. Further examples of "cosmopolitan frauds, fakers, murderers, thieves, and no-accounts" who also happen to be Nobel laureates can be found over at Powerline.

In the case of Al Gore's win, it's so laughably political as to be almost satirical. The IPCC's own findings on the subject contradict many of the claims made in An Inconvenient Truth, yet, somehow, the agency is Gore's partner in the prize. Not to mention the ruling by a British judge the same week that there are nine major errors in Gore's movie, none of which is enough to warrant the propaganda, er, film not being forced on British schoolchildren thus far, but that remains to be seen. Apparently, there are some inconvenient truths the Nobel committee chose to ignore.

Skeptical Environmentalist author and scientist Bjorn Lomborg has been having a field day with Gore's win, easily pointing out all the holes in his film in a recent article. Not to mention a host of critical articles written by others in the field who, apparently, never got the memo that "scientific consensus" had been reached.

Beyond the numerous fallacies enumerated in Gore's so-called documentary or the shaky basis for the entire concept of man-made catastrophic climate change, the connection between this film and the elusive concept of "peace" is tenuous at best.

Nobel committee chairman Ole Danbolt Mjøs, responding to such criticism, claimed that the global warming brought to light by Gore's tireless crusading (and I hear his carbon offset company's done quite well in the process) was certain to result in an "increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states" and, therefore, Gore could be fashioned into a peacemaker of sorts. Not that the conditions of violent conflict and wars ever needed encouragement to flourish, but, as we've all been hearing ad nauseam for the past several years, all the world's ills can be laid at the feet of dreaded climate change. Apparently, there was some distant past in which the earth's climate remained static and love and harmony prevailed. And if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. No doubt Al Gore's saying the same thing all the way to the bank, or the Whitehouse, to hear some acolytes tell it.

What's truly at stake are not warring states, but competing visions for the future. The actions of the Nobel committee reflect a desire to dampen U.S. economic power, redistribute wealth, and impose upon the U.S. and other capitalist nations a left-leaning, one-world government in which decisions on the environment (and everything else, for that matter) will be made by a group of bureaucrats ensconced in their European villas and, when the occasion strikes, the UN building generously housed by New York City.

Getting back to Gore's Nobel, as I pointed out in my earlier column, such blatant politicizing of award bestowing serves only to render these honors meaningless in the long run. If that were the goal, then I'd say the Nobel committee has finally hit the mark. Now there's something worthy of congratulation.


Blogger diurnalist said...

It is horrifying how easily the lazy public can be bamboozled into believing anything. Gore is a charlaton working against the interests of his own country, which guarantees him an award from the Euro-weenies.

Friday, October 19, 2007 10:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Nobel peace prize has been deminished in prestige since it is now used by the presenters to award political hacks for left wing causes. Theodore Roosevelt won it as originally intended for the action of stopping the Russo Japanese war but since then people likd Arafat and President Jimmy Carter have won it for rather nebulous reasons not associated with the original intent. It is a farse.

Sam Douthit MSGT retired

Friday, October 19, 2007 10:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the Nobel Prize is no longer held in the esteem that it once was - although I wouldn't turn one doan.

Saturday, October 20, 2007 6:15:00 AM  
Blogger Joseph said...

Has the Nobel Peace Prize ever been prestigious?

Saturday, October 20, 2007 4:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow. It is horrifying how easily the 20% or so of you can be fooled. Science is, after all, not to be believed by you flat-earthers and neoconservative corporatists.

The information about the British lawsuit you mentioned leaves out: The judge himself never used the term "errors." That was an allegation made by the plaintiff--whose motives are quite suspect. Stewart Dimmock, who brought this case, appears to have been funded by the very same fossil fuel interests who have sought to undermine the scientific consensus behind global warming in the past. The Observer has reported that he was funded by mining interests as well as the Scientific Alliance, an industry-backed non-profit with links to other groups in the U.S. like the U.S. based George C. Marshall Institute which has received funding from Exxon.

Lomborg, who is not a scientist, has been criticized widely from the scientific community. It's easy to find out what real scientists think of his work. But believing scientists requires believing in science (and having some understanding of the scientific process).

This is the real threat to our nation and our world - not Islamic terrorists. The rational of the world take the climate crisis seriously. To the other 20% of you, I have some beach-front property I'd like to sell you...

Saturday, October 20, 2007 4:56:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home