Secondly, the focus of this criticism is not that Gore is trying to solve environmental problems through political means, but he is trying to leverage environmental concerns (the latest and greatest being global warming) to accomplish seperate and not necessarily related political goals, in this case centralization of power, command and control economy, and a general status of citizens as being tools toward social ends, rather then individuals being ends unto themselves, and persueing happiness as they see fit.

The fear of global warming is being used, and exaggerated to promote this cause.

Of course geo-engineering doesn’t require the massive projects that you suggest. There are several viable ways of doing this that would cost a fraction of what Kyoto would cost. The political will could, I think, be created to at least fully explore them, but that wouldn’t accomplish the actual goals of the movement.

But why most of the hippies shun nuclear still frustrates me. It’s one of our best options right now!

The truth is that there is no point to suggest any huge project (geo-whatever, giant sun shades, etc) to solve the problem right now. That’s because politically there is no will to spend the money on that. So in that sense, Gore is doing exactly what needs to be done: address the politics, then the solutions (and checks to pay for them) will come.

Honestly: do you think if Gore *did* suggest geo-engineering that Conservatives would suddenly embrace him? What would you like to see him do differently? And how would those different actions have a better chance at “solving the problem”?

“…and, like all churches…”