Gore

First, congratulations to Al Gore for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Despite what many Americans seem to think, global warming is happening and it will lead to major, catastrophic changes in human and natural history. Even for many people who believe that something is happening, it seems like a distant problem not worth worrying about. This is an absolute falsehood. The backlash against Gore in the last week from the British judge and US writers claiming some kind of exaggeration or bad science is absurd. The only two reasons I can see why these claims are getting so much press are that, again, many people really don't want to admit that we have irrevocably changed the planet through our industrialization and consumerism and that press organizations hold to some idea of "balance" even when one side is clearly right. This is particularly true when it is progressives who are right. In these cases, even if reactionary forces are completely loony, they get equal press coverage.

Thus it disturbs me that in the Times website front page about Gore's award, they print this comment from a reader:

“The Nobel committee continues its record of rewarding left-wing alarmists.”

Why? Is this their way of saying that there are two sides to this debate that has only one correct side? Giving people like this forums for their idiocy only legitimizes their viewpoint for the public and further delays any real changes taking place that might do something about global warming.
So kudos to Gore and the opposite of kudos to the Times.

UPDATE, 10:47 AM: The Times is changing the featured reader comments but at least 1/2 of them continue to be anti-Gore screeds. Here's the latest: "Nobel is probably spinning in his grave. . . . Another left wing triumph over science and logic." What gives with featuring these people?