The King of the World continues to attract bad news:

Gore gets a cold shoulder

ONE of the world’s foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize “ridiculous” and the product of “people who don’t understand how the atmosphere works”.

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

“We’re brainwashing our children,” said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. “They’re going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It’s ridiculous.”

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: “We have to quickly find a way to change the world’s consciousness about exactly what we’re facing.”

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

“We’ll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was,” Dr Gray said.

Some of us already realize that.

In other bad news, there is now a demand that the Oscars revoke the award presented for Gore’s movie:

Inconvenieent Truth: Producers of Gore’s Film Asked to Return Oscars

This week there was a fairly harsh criticism of the Iraq war from Lt Gen Sanchez.

The liberals have gleefully seized it as a chance to poke the noses of the Republicans, and as expected some Republicans have taken issue with the speech.

My first observation was based on a blog at Hot Air, where some inconvenient clarifications were noted, notably that Sanchez’s comments was just as critical of Congress and their politicizing of the was as they were of the Administration.   Most Liberals were more concerned with sound bites, not the speech.

Sanchez had a simple message, one most clear thinkers agree on:  We need a strategy to victory because failure would be too costly.

Something new surfaced today, a Blog by John Amato at the liberal Crooks and Liars:

Lindsey Graham throws Lt. Gen. Sanchez under the Bus: “…his criticism is a bit astounding to me given his role in the war itself.”

Let the GOP attacks begin! Sen. Lindsey Graham wasted no time reminding the American people how awful retired General Sanchez’ tenure was in Iraq. He joined Blitzer this morning and commented about the General after he came out and criticized the Iraq war policy. The key phrase you’ll hear is that they appreciate his service, but….I wonder if Graham violated the Cornyn amendment?

First, if Sanchez makes public comment they are fair game for rebuttal and criticism,  That’s how the system works.

But more to the point, who is John to take issue with it?  I noted at least 30 blogs on his site critical of the testimony of Gen Petraeus, many before he even testified, and many defending the MoveOn.org hatchet ad, or other critics.

What a bloody hypocrite.  If the message is favorable to him, he loves it, defends it and attacks the critics, but if you take a position and attack his position, he is all over you like white on rice.

Sadly this is the norm in politics, which is yet another reminder that politics and truth have no intrinsic interconnection.