Lomborg Smacks Goracle: Global Warming Will Save Lives

An inconvenient peace prize. Sure, some will say there's jealousy involved. We consider it contempt.

At least this guy has the facts on his side.

THIS YEAR'S Nobel Peace Prize justly rewards the thousands of scientists of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These scientists are engaged in excellent, painstaking work that establishes exactly what the world should expect from climate change.

The other award winner, former US vice president Al Gore, has spent much more time telling us what to fear. While the IPCC's estimates and conclusions are grounded in careful study, Gore doesn't seem to be similarly restrained.

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 his Nobel co-winners, 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. That's similar to what the world experienced over the past 150 years.

Likewise, Gore agonizes over the accelerated melting of ice in Greenland and what it means for the planet, but overlooks the IPCC's conclusion that, if sustained, the current rate of melting would add just 3 inches to the sea-level rise by the end of the century. Gore also takes no notice of research showing that Greenland's temperatures were higher in 1941 than they are today.

The politician-turned-moviemaker loses sleep over a predicted rise in heat-related deaths. There's another side of the story that's inconvenient to mention: rising temperatures will reduce the number of cold spells, which are a much bigger killer than heat. The best study shows that by 2050, heat will claim 400,000 more lives, but 1.8 million fewer will die because of cold. Indeed, according to the first complete survey of the economic effects of climate change for the world, global warming will actually save lives.

It's so much easier to spread fear and panic. Who would win any prizes causing alarm over saving lives? Besides, Fatboy's got an agenda. Let's not quibble over any actual facts.

With attention and money in scarce supply, we should first tackle the problems with the best solutions, doing the most good throughout the century. If we focus on solving today's problems, we will leave communities strengthened, economies more vibrant, and infrastructures more robust. This will enable these societies to deal much better with future problems - including global warming. Committing to massive cuts in carbon emissions will leave future generations poorer and less able to adapt to challenges.

Gore has an unshakable faith that climate change is the world's biggest challenge. To be fair, he deserves some recognition for his resolute passion. However, the contrast between the Nobel winners could not be sharper. The IPCC engages in meticulous research where facts rule over everything else. Gore has a different approach.

Yes, it's called lying through his teeth.

Elsewhere, Andrea Peyser exposes the fraud just a bit more.

It's official. Following his sweep of the Oscar and Emmy awards, Gore is taking home the liberal trifecta. The ex-vice prez and leading peddler of junk science has won the Nobel in the category of peace, and presumably science fiction, for his docu-comedy "An Inconvenient Truth."

Gore's career as a rock star for global warming capable of forcing small children and seniors to hide under their beds in fear has proved a more successful endeavor than politics. And he doesn't have to get up as early in the morning.

While my jury is still out on climate change - the planet has been warmer at other times in history - you may in your heart accept that the Earth is slowly cooking and still reject Gore as a warming nut.

If the facts are on his side, why does he ignore decidedly - forgive me - inconvenient truths? He and his cronies hypocritically hop around the planet aboard all forms of fossil fuel-burning aircraft and further pollute the atmosphere by living in large houses rather than studio apartments.

At the core of the anti-warming quest is a willingness to ignore the things we gain from burning fuel. Industrialization leads to better education and higher standards of living.

But there is another agenda at work. Warming-ologists like to blast America as the planet's enemy, while other nations, such as China, emit far more filth on a daily basis.

Of course, Oslo, home of the Nobels, is not known for its common sense. The voters ignored a British judge's recent finding that Gore's signature movie is so riddled with distortions that schoolkids can watch it only after being warned about political indoctrination.

My favorite Goreism is his assertion that arctic polar bears, forced to swim up to 60 miles to find ice, are drowning. In fact, said the judge, only four bears were found drowned - in a storm.

Consider the company. The Nobelists gave the 2002 peace prize to Carter, a presidential disaster who has since reinvented himself as a chief critic of Israel, while making pathetic excuses for Palestinian terror.

The peace prize was awarded in 1964 to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., but it was handed 30 years later to the terrorist and robber of his own people Yasser Arafat.

Gore's award should come with an asterisk - as should they all.