There’s been an interesting piece of writing published in an American magazine called Investors Business Daily about global warming, Al Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize.
The article says in part, "The front runners for this year's Nobel Peace Prize are a couple of global warming alarmists.
"With dozens of wars raging, the committee couldn't find a single person labouring honourably for peace."
And then quite ominously the article says, of the Nobel Prize "Once a symbol of distinction, this honour has plumbed shameful depths in recent years.
"A country fair blue ribbon has more significance.
"Since 1990, winners include terrorist Yasser Arafat, foreign policy incompetents Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan, unreconstructed Communist Mikhail Gorbachev and the useless Mohammed el Baradei."
The article goes on, "Each year the Peace Prize Committee has a chance to redeem itself, yet it never seems up to the task.
"It looks like 2007 will be no exception."
Later this week, say reports, it will name as this year's co-winners Al Gore and Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian who's drawn attention to what she believes are climate change's effects on Arctic communities.
As the article says, it will be interesting to see how those two will be linked to anything resembling the promotion of peace.
Neither can meet the committee's qualifications by being "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
The article says "On the contrary, Gore, Watt-Cloutier and their eco-activist allies have created a divide where none should exist.
"They've fostered an 'us against them' world where global warming sceptics must be subdued by the global warming believers ... doubters must be mocked, maligned and marginalised."
The article says "It would be hard to find a less deserving recipient than Gore who has," the article says, "lied repeatedly about the existence of a scientific consensus that man's emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the earth, and made a propaganda film about climate change that a British court has deemed to be so biased that teachers there who show it must warn students about its subjectivity."
Back to that point about the British court in a moment.
And then the article says of Gore that he has "possibly been driven to his climate alarmism because of something called narcissistic personality disorder".
The article says that in a piece for Investors Business Daily last year Dr Henry I Miller, a physician and Fellow at the Hoover Institution who worked at both the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration laid out a good case that the former Vice-President "is disturbed".
It makes reference to the fact that Gore had earlier this year "cancelled an interview with Denmark's largest newspaper when he learnt it would include questions from Bjorn Lomborg, respected author of The Sceptical Environmentalist".
And Investors Business Daily asks "Does Gore know what so many have missed in their environmental zealotry - that his theory's many flaws cannot be defended.
"Is he aware that the errors of his global warming ideas would be quite easily exposed by a knowledgeable sceptic?"
Which brings us back to the British court.
As the result of legal action in Britain, and although a full ruling is yet to be given, a British court has found that Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth "was misleading in 11 respects and that the guidance notes drafted by the Education Secretary's advisers served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film".
Comments from Britain say, "In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their guidance notes to teachers to make clear that one, the film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument; two, if teachers present the film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act and guilty of political indoctrination; three, eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children."
I mean this is a farce by any measure.
And now as the Investors Business Daily writes, "Just what the Nobel committee really needs, another fraud in its pantheon of laureates.
"If Gore wins the prize as expected, it will mark another step in the long politicised decline of a once highly regarded international award."
The article ends, "How sad".
How sad indeed.