Telthorst.net

From the Wall Street Journal:

Officials gather in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit, but business leaders are focusing even more on Washington, where the Obama administration is expected as early as Monday to formally declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.¹

The Obama administration has also determined that humans, along with many other animals, exhale this dangerous pollutant, CO2.  Therefore, in addition to widespread taxes on heating, air conditioning, electricity, and other comforts, there will be a cap on how much CO2 an individual will be able to exhale.  Individuals that exceed the quota will be fined.  However, not all businesses or people are upset by the new legislation.  Climate change prophet Al Gore and several of his acolytes have developed a wearable CO2 mask (pictured below) that will trap and store exhaled CO2.  Gore is hailing the legislation as “long overdue,” “what must be done,” “good for business,” and “convenient.”

The mask themselves will cost $1,000, and capsules that store the CO2 will cost $50, these capsules should last approximately 22 hours under normal operating conditions.  When asked if profiting from a global “crisis,” was unethical, and perhaps even capitalistic, the multimillionaire, Gore had this to say:

“I am very happy to be able to offer these masks at a such an affordable rate.  Much of the proceeds will go towards global climate change awareness initiatives, such as when I fly around in my private, fossil fuel burning plane and give PowerPoint presentations.”

The removable storage capsules for the masks, when full, can be returned to Gore’s temple for CO2 storage and capsule recycling.  When asked why Gore did not wear the mask, he stated that he was rich enough to purchase climate indulgences, also known as carbon credits, so that he offsets his carbon exhalation, adding that his firm also sells these indulgences, the proceeds of which also go towards raising global warming awareness initiatives.

*This is a satirical post.*

However, the quote from the Wall Street Journal is real, and Al Gore has profited a  great deal from a “climate change hysteria.”

1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126013960013179181.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews#articleTabs=article [↩]

The deadline for nominations of the Nobel Peace Prize was February 1, just two weeks after President Obama was inaugurated as President of the United States.¹  However, he managed to impress people enough in just two weeks to be nominated for the prize, as well as convince the five committee members elected by the Norwegian Parliament who determine the prize recipient, that he deserved the prize.  According to the prize founder, Alfred Nobel, the the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who:

“during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”  ((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize))

It is unclear what Obama did to merit the prize.  It is also interesting why he was awarded the prize, while individuals such as Mohandas Ghandi (who led the India independence movement through non-violent opposition), Pope John-Paul II (who, inter alia, was instrumental in the fall of communism in eastern Europe), Irena Sendler (who saved 2,500 Jews during World War II), and Liu Xiabo (a human rights champion in China, who is currently in prison), were not awarded the prize for their efforts.

It seems likely based on the statement issues by the Nobel Comittee², as well as the known political persuasion of the Nobel Committee, that this prize was given to ensure that Obama did not back out on his promises, and he follows through with his agenda.  Thus, instead of awarding the prize for accomplishments, it is instead used as a political tool to influence Obama’s policies.

Not everyone in Norway agrees with the controversial decision.  Siv Jensen, leader of Norway’s Progress Party, was quoted in the Wall Street Journal:

“It is just too soon.  It is wrong to give him the peace prize for his ambition. You should receive it for results.”  She said that the decision to bestow the award on the president was the most controversial she could remember and was one of a number that had moved the prize further away from the ideals of Alfred Nobel.³

Former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983 was also quoted as stating,  ”So soon?  Too early.  He has no contribution so far,” ”He is still at an early stage.”  Bestowing this honor upon President Obama so early in his presidency is a disservice to the former Chicago Senator as well.  Awarding the prize so early, without providing the former Chicago Senator with an opportunity  to prove the impact he can make on the world, diminishes the prize to a “call to action.”  Nobel Peace Prize recipients have been controversial in the past, and the current decision affirms that the prize is not an award for accomplishment, but instead, a political tool.

1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html [↩]
2. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html [↩]
3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html [↩]