I'm glad to see All Points Blog/Directions Magazine engaging in explicit political partisanship. This should help put the lie to the oft-repeated claim in the geospatial industry that GIS/maps and politics shouldn't mix.

The geospatial community can be especially pleased by the award to Al Gore and the IPCC, recognizing as it does the role of matters close to our hearts (the environment and geography). As Frank at Very Spatial (http://veryspatial.com/?p=1797) points out:

" I find it interesting the Nobel people are turning more and more to areas beyond human conflict when recognizing impacts on world peace. The Nobel Institute gives out several prizes in a range of disciplines, but I think the peace prize is the most recognized. It’s also the only slot in which geography fits nicely."

But you didn't need to read very far into Mr. Christy's editorial in the WSJ to see the right-wing talking points come flying out: Al Gore's carbon footprint could flatten Christy's neighborhood! No wonder he chose the WSJ as his outlet (or they chose him).

Don't believe these are talking points? See http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge. I was always told that science acknowledges error, corrects it, and moves on. Mr. Christy, by repeating rebutted talking points, shows he's not a serious scientist.

By contrast, the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement for Science) has an acknowledgment of the prize on its website (proudly noting that Gore is a AAAS member).

Pretty soon we'll hear the "judge finds 9 [or was it 11] errors in Gore's film" (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php) meme again!

Obviously my comment was a little tongue in cheek but I'm sorry it provoked a defensive reaction.

I didn't say you had a position on the political spectrum, rather that you mixed politics and the geospatial (eg by inviting Mr. Christy and promoting his conservative views in the WSJ), and I quite liked that. (The mix, not the views!)