Chuck 

We don't have to agree whether Kerry was a hero or a villain in the Viet
Nam War Swift Boat episode.  But I think that you will agree that the art
of the Smear has been used as a tactical political weapon by some very
inferior candidates to win elections.

We don't have to agree on Al Gore's honesty. But perhaps we may agree that
"Global Warming Swindle" argument is being used to smear him.

There are many arguments against use of fossil fuels for energy
generation, beside Global Warming.
Brian Ellis has mentioned the negative impact on health. For our country,
there is another.  For more than 50 years, security of petroleum sources
has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.  Now that policy has
culminated in a ruinous war that will cost us a trillion dollars.  We
needed that money to rebuild our crumbling physical infrastructure and our
inadequate educational K-12 system. Now we have lost precious lives,
antagonized the world, and incurred long-term medical obligations.

Realistically, fossil fuels are not going to be replaced soon, maybe never
completely.  They are too cheap, abundant, and necessary. But
breakthroughs are needed to control all emissions.  

I believe that the reins of power in this country are about to shift from
energy companies to technology companies.  I'm sure that you will welcome
that as much as I do.  The new environment will provide a seedbed for
alternative energy and effective environmental control technology
development.  There will be breakthroughs. That's Gore's message.  I'll
bet that you agree with that message, despite your dislike of the
messenger.   
Harvey Miller
 
--- Charles Dolci <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Harvey:
>   Interesting article.
>   Can you explain the reference to the " 'The Swift Boat Calumnies'
> that bedeviled Kerry’s presidential bid in 2004."?
>   The dictionary defines "calumny" as "a false and malicious statement
> designed to injure the reputation of someone or something"  Can you
> please state the facts you had at hand that allowed you to make that
> statement?
>   
> Also, don't you think the "GW"  ” people have to ask themselves, “Am I
> 100% sure that all
> global warming is" caused by human activity?  "Because if they are not
> 100% sure, they could be inviting [economic] disaster for all of us. If
> they are
> sure, they need to come up with unassailable proof—the burden is on
> them."
>   
> "If any of them have a hidden agenda, they should declare it. Al Gore,
> at
> least, is [dis]honest, in my opinion."
>    
>   Or is the GW crowd somehow above the standards required of everyone
> else?
>    
>   Chuck Dolci
>    
>    
>   
> Harvey Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>   
> A word here has to be said about the propounders of the “Global Warming
> Swindle”, who suggest that it’s all sunspots causing long-term climate
> changes. In some ways they are analogous to “The Swift Boat Calumnies”
> that bedeviled Kerry’s presidential bid in 2004..
> Gore is not alone in raising the threat. The vast majority of
> environmental scientists so believe. A prime example is Dr. Nathan Lewis
> at Caltech who has minutely tracked carbon intensification in the
> atmosphere and its impacts, in his work on solar and other renewal
> energy
> forms.
> 
> The “Swindle” people have to ask themselves, “Am I 100% sure that all
> global warming is beyond the control of humans?” Because if they are not
> 100% sure, they could be inviting disaster for all of us. If they are
> sure, they need to come up with unassailable proof—the burden is on
> them. 
> If any of them have a hidden agenda, they should declare it. Al Gore, at
> least, is honest, in my opinion.
> 
> The importance of the Embedded Systems Conference needs to be
> emphasized. 
> Embedded Systems are the staging ground for the Electronics Inside that
> move the industry. It’s where the de-gutting is done and the product
> improvement. It’s where new ideas are hatched on silicon.
> Al Gore picked a good venue for promoting “The Democratization of
> Technology”. I hope he puts some more meat on them bones.
> 
> I had hoped for a private interview—didn’t fit the format. Maybe next
> time.
>