Gore ‘does not deserve’ praise

Although the editorial about Gore’s Peace Prize (“”Peace in the balance,”” Tuesday) is partially correct, I take issue with a few common errors in this article.

First, George Bush has never dismissed climate change. Throughout his tenure Bush has acknowledged climate change, has said it is human-caused and has recently proposed an alternative to Kyoto (a defunct treaty under which very few countries met its benchmarks).

Second, science isn’t done by consensus. Unless the process has changed under my nose, laboratories aren’t polling booths for Ph.D.s. Science is a process. A scientist hypothesizes something that can be disproved through testing. Scientific consensus is worth nothing without real data to support hypotheses. In the rush to prove climate change, scientists are willing to use unacceptable data. For example, more than half of the surveyed weather stations in the U.S. do not meet government regulations; the stations are next to AC vents, tarmacs and antennas.

Gore does not deserve plaudits of any kind. How much carbon dioxide does Gore’s jet spew? How much carbon dioxide is emitted to heat Gore’s mansions? Nevertheless, Gore has proposed legislation that makes energy very expensive. These increased energy costs would disproportionately affect poor people, because they pay a larger percentage of their income on energy.

Though Gore arrogates the title of Champion of the Environment, in the Nobel Prize fight, he is not the people’s champ.

-Matthew Harwood
nutrition junior