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.