NORMAL LIFE: What To Believe?

So, former US president Al Gore was awarded this year's Nobel Peace Prize for 'questioning the basic foundation stones of the current civilisation', says the spokesman for the President of the Czech Republic before rightly adding which 'does not contribute to peace much'!

From the general comments posted on the BBC News website, the vast majority welcome the granting of the Prize to such a committed individual although many admit that it is not the intention of the Prize to simply spout out what is, in fact, already known theory.

Piers Forster, from the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds, UK, points out: 'it is perhaps a little deflating....that one man and his PowerPoint show has as much influence as the decades of dedicated work by so many scientists.'

I actually saw the movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which drove his sensationalist beliefs to the public. A High Court judge actually claimed that the movie contained "nine scientific errors" so now I am confused. Al Gore gets a Prize, with a value estimated at more than €700m, for filling our children's head up with inaccurate information? And what does Al Gore want to be? A scientist, or a politician? My question is: who should we believe?

Of course, climate change is a REAL issue. I am not denying that, but sensationalising the issue isn't the way. In many ways, the American media works in very much the same way as the Catholic church did during the middle ages - it's all about attaching a element of fear to what the unknown/uncertain in order to get acknowledgement.

But when that acknowledgement comes in the form of a Nobel Peace Price being given to a 'man and his Powerpoont presentation' which, in affect, embodies the many lifetimes works of countless scientists who have actually done the math, what hope is there for peace when the only Prize in existence for peace isn't even award to someone who bought Peace of any quantifiable magnitude? Confused. So confused.