Thoughtful piece. However, this right-wing writer forgot to mention Henry Kissinger who also won the peace prize. Henry talked Nixon into the bombing of Cambodia. It was one of the biggest bombing raids in history.

The core message of Al Gore is that our obscession with economic growth comes at a price. The writer focuses on DDT which has definitely been a great benefit - but it is now in human milk throughout the world. That cannot be a good thing.

Gore is wasting his time. Every graph when extrapolated leads to our destruction. There is no light at the tunnel at all. China is the clasical eaxmple of the seduction of building an economy based on excessive consumption. The last of the gorrilas are now caught in the crossfire of yet another battle in the Congo. We cannot help ourselves. We are born to destroy.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been a joke for a while. The latest award shared between Albert and the IPCC just lessens its reputation further to a position of irrelevance. Doris Lessing summed it up when she was told she had won the Nobel Literature Prize, she exclaimed "I couldn't care less".

Congrats Albert, the world has never seen the likes of your hypocrisy and gall.

Garbage all the way down.

The Enterprise Institute is one of those "right" thinking outfits that promote the gospel of "freedom" as espoused by the Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Friedman was awarded a Nobel Prize in economics.

This well researched book describes extraordinary human suffering and cultural destruction/devastation created by the BRUTE-opian experiments conducted by the BRUTALISTS inspired by those two ghouls.

The CIS and the IPA being the two local propaganda factories for these brutalist fantasies. They are also effectively the organizations that generate the BRUTALIST BRUTOPIAN policies of the current Federal government---and which have effectively circumscribed the parameters of what passes for acceptable political ideas and policies in the current election campaign -- "right"-wing political correctness rules.

1. http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

Do yourself a favour and read this book to immunize yourself against the neo-brutalist cant featured in this essay.

It is also interesting that this ghoul praises the invention of dynamite.
There is an interesting link here.

In the book I pointed to the author points out that disaster capitalism has produced an exponential growth in military related research---finding better ways to spy on EVERYONE and terminate/toast us all too.

The "free" market responding to the GOVERNMENT created needs of the moment.

It is also well known and documented that most,if not all,leading edge scientific research, even in the soft sciences, is sponsored by the Pentagon. Indeed in chapter one of the book titled The Torture Lab the author gives a very chilling example of soft science research paid for by the Pentagon.

Aint the "free" market wonderful---all fuelled by unlimited mega-bucks and a bottomless pit of security state paranoia---getting rid of the enemies of "freedom"---"freedom" to plunder the planet unencumbered by any Government imposed restrictive laws---even laws which have the full support of most of the population---except of course by ghouls who write books titled eco-freaks.

Trust us we (that is the "market" which serves OUR interests) know best.

All other previous arrangements of Human Culture are now obsolete---welcome to the new utopia.

What a crappy piece of polemic from a far right turkey. Al Gore has managed, more than any other individual, to bring an awareness of anthropogenic global warming into the mainstream of human consciousness throughout the world. Even the Howard government has been forced to acknowledge the reality of this disaster in the light of increased general awareness of AGW, much of which was facilitated by Al Gore's film "An Incovenient Truth".

It is probably not an exaggeration to suggest that the future wellbeing of the human species is dependent upon the acknowledgement of climate change and AGW, as a first step to taking the kinds of global remedial actions that might ameliorate its effects on human societies and the environments in which they live.

Al Gore deserves the Noble Peace Prize.

John old son, you must look upon the world with a very odd set of eyes.

There are very few real certainties in life and I'm positive for every chart, figure and table featured in An Inconvenient Truth I could conjure data to refute their veracity or wheel out an appropriate expert to see them shot down in flames.

We could sit around for an eternity arguing over the validity and accurancy of what presented in the film. Meanwhile life would carry on as normal having missed the point entirely. Climate change has entered public consciousness and few doubt its presence as a reality.

Albert's film seeks to convey the mechanisms by which this is now occurring and in doing so hopefully prompts us to think more deeply about the impacts of our lifestyles. If this persuades some people to live more sustainiably, then it most certainly helps to improve the condition of humankind, now and more importantly in the future.

Some quotes from the great man...

"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."

Demonstrating his grasp on science...

"Mars is essentially in the same orbit... Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, & water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

and

"For NASA, space is still a high priority."

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

as always Al is ready

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."

No wonder he got the prize....

Great read. I would also add that Al Gore has the world's
largest carbon foorprint.

Great read. I would also add that Al Gore has the world's
largest carbon footprint.

Great article!

I wish those who have left comments in disagreement could provide something of substance that they disagree with rather than just attacking John Berleu. It seems 'the left' prefer to play the person rather than the ball?

BTW his book 'Eco-freaks' is also a great read.

Alzo, not sure what point you're trying to make...none of those quotes are Al Gore's. Some may be Dan Quayle's but even that's debateable.

See: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/candidate.asp

As for Gore's carbon footprint, I certainly agree that for him to live a life of such profligate affluence is not a good look, because our current technology does not allow any more than a tiny fraction of the world's population to live such a life, based on the ecological footprint it implies. Even if it's true that most his home electricity use is from renewable sources, and he "offsets" his flights, he could be doing a far better job of leading by example. Having said that, on balance his overall influence will be almost certainly be net positive on helping the world combat global warming.

OTOH, the Nobel prize should perhaps have waited until he has actually convinced the US to sign up to an international agreement.

With all due respect Jennifer, you can't take underhanded debate tactics - such as attacking the man, not the topic - and apply them to an entire political ideology. You can't just make that claim of people on 'the left' as it's hardly keeping on topic either. It's a futile exercise, and I could just as easily make the same claims of 'the right.'

In regard to the article, there are several premises here which are either deliberately ignored or underplayed.
First he begins with what really appears to be little more than semantics.

Cont'd

This statement for instance, is quite loaded: Gore, by contrast, does not even profess improving the human condition as his fundamental goal. Rather, his stated desire is to stop human activity that he sees as ruining what he calls the "ecosystem"

I would have thought the logical conclusion is that humans are tied to their ecosystem. What damages the ecosystem damages people. The issue of a 'fundemental goal' is entirely moot, because the end result is an attempt to better the human situation.

Then we have the situation with the trees and cancer cures - reading through it, I certainly didn't see any indication that he ruled out the use of the trees to cure cancer - simply that he was opposed to excessive harvesting. I'll grant you, the omission of planting more as an oversight, appears to be quite a glaring one, but the fact that he wishes to save more for future generations can't really be criticised.

I do concur with Berlau's critique of Gore's commentary regarding improved agricultural methods, but that being said, ultimately Gore makes a good point insofar as unrestrained population growth will inevitably result in the nullification of these benefits anyway.
From Berlau's analysis it would appear that Gore does have a lack of respect for the benefits these agricultural production methods have provided, though I'm wary of accepting this as Gore's entire view on the matter. It's quite possible he's made comment elsewhere that would give a less critical overall impression.

I don't have all the information regarding DDT so I can't comprehensively comment, though I do know there are many negative environmental implications that are glossed over in this article.

As far as tirades and colourful language go, I'd suggest 'eco-freaks' does as much to try and paint a certain perception as anything.
Organisations with names such as the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" don't do much to inspire confidence either.
It's patently clear that moves to restrict greenhouse gas emissions are going to run into opposition from certain sectors of industry.
The issue then becomes, sorting out the truth from the fiction.
I am sympathetic to some who point out flaws in global warming theory, though when the chief antagonists are in blatantly right wing groups such as 'enterprise institutes' I'm far more inclined to take their missives with more than a grain of salt.

According to the Nobel Prize web site this prize is awarded "to the person who 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."

It is difficult to reconcile the output of the IPCC or the screening of An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) and the subsequent promotion of many of its alarming claims to increasing fraternity, abolishing armies and holding peace conferences.

It also seem ironic that the Nobel prize was announced immediately after the adverse findings of a UK High court judge (see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html)
that not only did AIT contain errors it needed the following warning before being shown to school children in the UK:
"AIT promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues)"
Perhaps this warning should have been given to the Nobel Prize committee.

TRTL, I must say you are spot on with "there are many negative environmental implications that are glossed over in this article."

He seems to think that Rachael Carson was wrong and should be publicly denounced, however he fails to mention that the "life-saving chemical" is actually a residual neurotoxin with a very long half-life (up to 15 years!) that interferes with bird egg hatching and a range of other environmental concerns having to do with its fat solubility and amplification in the food chain. While I am not an advocate of banning pesticides per se, pesticides with such long half lives do present a great concern, not the least of which is/was insecticide resistance and its effects on the efficacy of the chemical.

These days you would not be able to get a chemical like DDT even considered for registration in any industrialised nation, because the residues are just too persistent.

DDT was certainly banned but for several reasons, not just Rachael Carson. The authors obvious bias is clearly seen in regards to the language used in discussing this topic, and thus the whole article becomes somewhat suspect.

Nature finds a way.
We reap what we sow.
But where are the results from from all the core samples (ice ,sediment,volcanic) being hidden. With this great idea of carbon trading we can buy the legal right to pollute from somebody with no money then charge them a premium for our destructive products. A noble prize for telling a known problem is just pathetic. Nothing noble in being a parrot.The planet has always changed to correct it's (and now our )problems. We need this earth but it does not need us.Let us change from greed to need or the greed will(WILL) take all we need.

John Berlau writes;

“In direct contradiction of Alfred Nobel's last will and testament, the selection of Gore essentially means the Peace Prize can no longer be said to be an award for improving the condition of humankind.”

Oh, so striving to see that the condition of humankind doesn’t rapidly worsen is not good enough eh? It is outside of the definition is it?

For goodness sake!!

I think Al Gore is one of the most deservEd Nobel Prize winners of all time.

While Berlau may be able to nitpick various things in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and ‘Earth in Balance’, Gore’s messages are rock-solid, and of the greatest of importance globally, no doubt more so than the efforts of any other single Nobel Prize winner.

Perhaps the Nobel Prize committee and John Berlau might like to look at some of the winners in years gone by, whose achievements have resulted in great improvements in health, industry, quality of life, etc, and look at the downsides of these innovations.

I’d put it to them that some major innovations, for all their short and medium-term advantages, have worked greatly towards increasing population and impact on the planet, and hence towards placing millions of people, if not everyone on the planet, in a precarious position in the longer term (now the short-term!).

If the Noble Prize committee had had a truly holistic outlook, I reckon it would have seen through some of these supposed improvements for humanity and seen the long-term implications…and not issued prizes accordingly.

Al Gore is a thoroughly deserving winner of any peace prize. He has done more than any other individual to galvanise an apathetic public into finally realizing that human-induced climate change is the greatest threat to 'public health and human progress' that the world has ever faced. Hopefully, we might now be able to redirect the earth's precious resources from our previous obsessions of competing against and/or killing each other and actually work together in a desperate race to build solutions.

Gore would be the first to admit he doesn't have all the answers and that some of his data is no doubt open to debate, but in this shallow and media driven world it has been his film, An Inconvenient Truth, that has cut through to the masses in a way that all others before him have failed to do.

A director of something called the Competitive Enterprise Institute is obviously going to be gunning for Gore, or anyone else that dare suggests that his greed is good philosophy is destroying the planet.

It always makes me laugh. Free market types have this idea that if something is bad then people won't do it so Governments shouldn't stop anything. Any Government regulation is bad and by extension anyone pushing for Government regulation must be evil. You can still buy DDT in the US but I bet you the author does not use it at the dinner table when there is a fly buzzing his dinner.

DDT, Global warming, Evolution, AIDs and Smoking all seem to be on the check list of things these nutters deny.

Oh and guess what, EXXON fund's the Author funny that.

A peace prize from the inventor of dynamite.

A sham award for a failed political hack.

Divine justice.

The charade is now complete.