What if Al Gore is Wrong About the Environment?

Question

We have cleaner skies due to less pollution?

Our children grow up healthier?

We are less dependent on foreign oil?

We pioneer an industry the rest of world will eventually follow?

Is there a problem with that?

Humans are the direct result of global warming? If you're trying to say that humans are the direct CAUSE of global warming, well - I never said or implied that. Please don't read any more into this than what is written here.

Answer 1

Apparently, yes.

That's the problem. If Bush is wrong about Iraq, then we've caused an ENORMOUS amount of damage, the consequences of which will be too far-reaching for any of us to really understand.

If Gore is wrong about the environment, all we've done is improved our surroundings a little.

Answer 2

To say that humans are the direct result of global warming is a complete farse. These so called experts look at a range of data that suits them, ignore all outside causes, and come up with a consense that we are the cause. The consense 1000 years ago was the Earth was flat and was the center of the universe. That certainly is fact today isn't it?

Truth is if you look at 100's of thousands of years, not just the last 2000 years, you would see a very evident trend that shows the climate just naturally changes. This is due to lots and lots of factors, not just CO2 gas.

Here are some facts. The Earth's orbit changes from nearly circular to very elliptical huge time periods. The Earth also changes its tilt over thousands of years. The Earth's magnetic field also shifts over huge time periods. The Sun goes threw times of more and less radiation and heat being given off. Waper vapor is another "greenhouse gas" that the weather patterns change to bring things to a more stable environment. Face it, the Earth was going through these periods before we got here.

Now, that isn't to say we shouldn't take care of our environment. But we are to do it because we want to and it is the right thing to do. Not because we have to.

Answer 3

While we take action to lower pollution countries like China expand their pollution. Al Gore ( the inventor of the Internet) is taking the standard democrat approach and latching onto something that gets attention but can be twisted to fit goals. He talks about cutting the dangers of global warming while flying around the world and sucking down more energy that 10 average Americans. Al Gore pushing environmental issues is like Ted Kennedy working to reduce Alcohol consumption.

Answer 4

And what if Al Gore is right? Either way, it would seem to not matter.

If humans cause the global warming, I am hardly in favor of erradicating humanity to solve the problem.

And I cannot support another one-sided global treaty. If the manufacturers in the world (no longer the US, btw) cannot follow their labor laws, what makes you think they will follow environmental ones?

And regardless of whether one believes in global warming, there is no one in the US supporting uncontrolled pollution. No one. And companies are voluntarily dealing with the problem of the environment, which is as it should be.

Answer 5

Problem is you would alter our economics, most likely for the worst if you tried to do those things. You can't prove our children would definitely grow up healthier, or that some magical industry will result from this. Those are the problems with that. I believe in solving known problems, not attempting to solve unknown ones.

Answer 6

We have cleaner skies due to less production.
Our children grow up with shorter life expectancies.
We have no industry to need oil.
We pioneer horse and buggy technology.
I have a problem with a pre-industrial, agrarian society based on socialism.

Answer 7

If only it were that simple.

The things you mention do make sense yes.

The issue is do we get guilt tripped into things like the Kyoto protocol, which isnt accomplishing anything but if we had signed we would be strong armed into measures that would effect the USA economy.

Answer 8

1) Our air and water are cleaner now than they were 100 years ago.

2) You throw the word "we" around but there is no "we" - there is you and there is me. I don't want to spend money on things you want done. I want to do things you don't want me to do, or that you propose forcing me to do less of. So yes, it's a big deal if you're "wrong," you've been wrong before, and that's why we want proof.

Answer 9

Its not economical - let Wal Mart, Haliburton, and the good old "free" global market economy take care of us!

Answer 10

The question should be, "What if he's wrong and he KNOWS hes wrong?" What he ireally advocating in a real subversive, disingenuous way is old style socialism. Check it out. Its been tried. Does'nt work. Capitalism kicks its butt. (and finds better ways to fight pollution) Don't be duped. Think for yourself.....