I am not sure if he is right, but even if the globe is not warming, we should definitely reduce our dependance on fossil fuels.
May be that's the real reason he's talking about warming.
2006-07-11 17:46:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by apply112 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Gotta agree with Superman. Al Gore's scare tactic is just that. Yes, man has had a slight impact on the composition of the atmosphere over the last century or so. However, it is arrogant of us as a people to think we have the influence to affect a change on the scale of "The Day After Tomorrow." As aforementioned, the Earth's been cooling and heating for billions of years- all well before the first SUV was invented. Most people don't realize that a change in the Earth's distance from the sun by even a miniscule amount will have more effect on the global climate than will the "greenhouse effect."
2006-07-12 00:19:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Earth has warmed and then cooled for all it's 4 billion years.
We all learned about the ice ages. Those were cooling periods and between them were warming periods.
The Earth is going through a pole shift right now. A pole shift is when the magnetic poles swap polarity. During pole shifts the magnetosphere is weaker.
That lets more of suns energy hit the earth. This causes more heat to absorbed by the Earth.
The real problem will come when the frozen methane under the oceans melts and gets into the air. Then the greenhouse effect will go ballistic.
The methane wil dissapate and then the Earth will go through another cooling cycle. It's history! If we puny humans believe for a second that with our limited knowledge we can stop or even slow a natural cycle of the Earth. Then we're stupid, like Al Gore!
2006-07-11 22:09:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Probably partially right. Pure truth is is not attainable to humans, least of all politicians. No one knows for sure what path the globe will take, the cause for change positive or negative as no mortal is privy to the future. We can only base what we think may happen on what we see about us and our knowledge of what has happened in the past. These are called theories and the more we have studied the subject the more qualified our theories are to being classed as educated theories. But they are still just educated guesses.
Not to say that some of his points may not be dead on, but perhaps some may to a degree be tainted by personal bias, politics, or lack of full understanding on the subject. Al Gore is not math genius. I think he was a C student in college.
But for texas latina below, the title of the article is misleading. AP sent a questionnaire to over 100 scientist, but only 19 had seen the movie and could reply. That should tell you to some extent that the first 19% of the scientists who went to see it were probably receptive to those ideas postulated in the movie anyway. Any of those 100 who were in disagreement with Gore's concepts probably had heard what they were and would have skipped the movie altogether. Not to say who is right or wrong, but to say that the article means nothing as far as consensus.
2006-07-11 17:53:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by martin b 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
American politicians such as Mr. Gore are soooooooooooo concerned about global warming, that they allowed industrial developers and financiers to move industry from this country of strict regulations about pollutants to a country of ONE BILLION more people with not so strict regulations about pollutants.
Why, Hellfire, yes Mr. Gore is really concerned that the sky is falling. Why if only we greedy Americans could just learn to live with even less, make less, do less, love freedom less, and just share with others on our sweet little peaceful global plantation, all would be well with the weather. Joy could return to Mudville, there would be pie in the sky, and we could once again build our Christmas Snowmen (insensitive evil pushy Christians that we all are!) on the street corners of Miami. Oh, yes, indeed, Mr. Al Gore (martyr for the little man---dumb enough to vote for him---inventor of the Internet, writer of tomes of truth and of how America is destroying the world's atmosphere now that all its jobs have been outsourced), does indeed believe that he can make himself believe that America is the ruination of planet Earth by its single-handed destruction of the ozone layer, etc. And when elected he will no doubt work hard to punish us and make us pay to undo the alleged thing WE did, while the rest of the world watches with glee (smoke billowing from their smokestacks!).
2006-07-11 18:33:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by The Invisible Man 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Associated Press reported that, "The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy."
I'm not an Al Gore fan, but I believe the science behind his message. Global warming is real... and it's not too late to save ourselves and our planet.
2006-07-11 17:53:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Texas_X 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
GLOBAL WARMING/THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL
Any and I mean any environmental cause or approach must be grassroots in nature. Having PhD's talk about global warming and having those representing industry interests debunk these present theories is a high level and almost an entirely futile effort. Don't get me wrong, it is great that someone with Al Gore's connections and exposure is getting the word out. However, people are people they want to see results.
Yes, the expression is now trite but still true, "Thing Globally, Act Locally". Watching the sky over a city, town or even a more rural area become darkened by smog has local impact, people take note and actually see A PROBLEM. A problem that can measured in terms of air quality or perhaps an AIR QUALITY HEALTH INDEX like the one that the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is in the process of implementing. You can measure results (however small) in terms of air quality and the affect it has on the health care system (those with breathing problems, doctor's visits, etc). It certainly speaks to the advantage of a UNIVERSAL health care system (however, actually implemented) as it actually makes sense to improve the environment as it keeps people healthy (a humanitarian cause) and when health care it publicly funded it affects the public coffers when people become ill therefore it even makes better financial sense to keep the environment a top priority.
Plus any approach must be entire with a complete overall plan (the big picture). Including recycling initiatives, energy solutions (alternatives/renewables can now present a real potential financial threat to the big oil companies and even power companies...), government involvement at all levels, public transit, greener vehicles in general (Hybrid, Hydrogen, Conventional electric, bio-diesel, ethanol), conservation in all energy arenas, ETC!
Economic viability is the real sell as many of these solutions are just that economically sensible (ensuring we look at the entire picture). Yes as more people use solar, wind and other renewable energy sources the cheaper the technology will get. Two of the newest billionaires have earned a large portion through renewables Solar (India I believe) and Wind (China I believe). Yes in many ways developing nations and economies will be the first and early adopters of such renewable tech as they are just building much of their infrastructure.
So what do we all need to do? GET INVOLVED ! Contact your local government about improving your recycling program, contact provincial/state/federal government about the adopting of these new technologies (renewables such as solar/wind), buy gas with ethanol in it and demand it, use and demand bio diesel, buy products with less packaging and demand manufacturers to reduce packaging and to offer a price break as a result. More ECONOMIC VIABILITY! After all energy diversity just like economic diversity is the safest and best bet for good long term results and return on investment.
Joe...
KEEP IT UP MR. GORE THE POLAR BEARS NEED YOU FIRST **GRIN**.
2006-07-12 11:57:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Al Gore isn't right about what to have for breakfast, so how can he possibly know anything about Global Warming?
2006-07-11 17:44:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by No More 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
According to modern science, yes the Earth is warming up and man has at least something to do with it.
"The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 degrees Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" [1]. The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. "
Is it a major crisis, is the world going to change forever because of it? Who knows. Al Gore overplayed it for his movie and his political ambitions.
2006-07-11 17:46:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by John 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Q. Is the earth warming and 100% of the worlds scientist say yes;
Q. Is man causing the earth to warm? 28% of the earths' scientist say yes and 72% say its a documented natural occurance that has happened time and time again - and there isn't much man can do to mess with it.
www.junkscience.com
2006-07-11 17:42:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by netjr 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. Unfortunately there are alot of retarded Christians in our lovely nation that welcome the end of the world and are doing everything they can to speed our demise. They drive SUVs to work, alone. They vote for an incompetent administration that rolls back every good thing we have ever done for the environment.
Every gallon of gas burned releases 25 pounds of heat-trapping CO2 into the atmosphere. Think about that when you drive your gigantic SUV across the U.S. just because you like driving.
2006-07-11 17:50:38
·
answer #11
·
answered by tim15roth 2
·
0⤊
0⤋