Is'nt Al Gore truly a crazy person?

Question

I need a thoughtful essay on just how nuts he is. I want you to include the very, very, very last moment of his final "throwing in the towel speech" at the tail-end of the 2000 election. I also need you to identify the media trick used with his very last few words that solidified his state of mind, and his ideas for the future......which is now for this buffoonic idiot......and unfortunately for our country. Hint (Research your video tapes)

Answer 1

No he's just a fraud:

The idea that there is an imminent impending global disaster resulting from human actions is a complete and utter lie, plain and simple. Either Al Gore is an unbelievably stupid man or he’s laughing all the way to the bank at the stupidity of the general public that’s willing to pay money to see his movie. “An Inconvenient Truth” would be more appropriately titled “A Convenient Lie” – convenient for Al Gore anyway who has now produced the third highest grossing documentary of all time – over $24,000,000 to date ($47 million world-wide). That doesn’t include the additional unjust profits earned from book sales and speaking engagements.

His film would lead you to believe that every single scientist even remotely qualified to study global climate change agrees that disaster is imminent and that humankind is the direct cause. The reality of the situation is quite the opposite – most qualified scientists vehemently disagree with this assertion.

It is unbelievable how many people believe and treat this complete and utter fallacy as fact. Read blogs, newspaper articles, Internet forums – a startling number of people have bought this lie hook line and sinker.

I’m sure most would argue that even if the science is flawed, certainly it’s a good idea for us all to take it a little bit easier on the planet and with that I would most certainly agree. However, not only is Al Gore and company all wrong on the cause of global climate change (or perhaps even the very existence of global climate change) but their proposed solution could potentially be harmful to the environment.

The problem is that Al Gore and others have somehow, absent virtually any credible scientific evidence whatsoever, latched onto the idea that man-made CO2 (carbon dioxide) is the single biggest threat to environment. Credible research actually shows quite the opposite, it may in fact be true that additional carbon dioxide in the environment is beneficial to the Earth’s entire ecosystem stimulating the growth of additional plant and animal life. Carbon dioxide is not a noxious chemical but rather a relatively benign compound that is either used or released through virtually any organic process. Humans and animals breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, plants ingest carbon dioxide and expel oxygen and yes carbon dioxide is a bi-product of burning fossil fuels.

Regardless of the facts stated above, man-made carbon dioxide is actually not even a significant percentage of the carbon dioxide found within the Earth’s atmosphere.

I don’t want to reinvent the wheel and I will link to all the material that supports what I’m saying, as if it’s not bad enough that Al Gore is propagating a complete and total lie, his proposed solution to a non-existent problem is potentially harmful to the environment.

Please don’t misunderstand, I don’t dispute that there aren’t many things humans do that are very detrimental to the Earth’s environment, however there is NO credible scientific data to suggest that excessive release of CO2 into the environment is one of them.

If you want to help the environment focus on doing something that actually helps the environment rather attempting to solve a problem that may or may not exist by doing something that will not help (and might hurt) the situation.

Don’t take my word for it, here’s 17,200+ scientists (and counting) that agree there is no element of truth to Gore's film:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm...

Here is the letter sent on behalf of the petition signers requesting that our government not sign the Kyoto treaty to reduce C02 emissions because it will not help anything and in fact may be detrimental to the environment and to developing nations:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm...

Here is supporting peer-reviewed­ research:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm...

Here are a few articles from the Canada Free Press shooting down all the Global Warming hype:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harr...
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harr...
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harr...

Don’t be another jackass out there campaigning for a pointless solution to a problem that has little to no hard scientific evidence suggesting it even exists. If you want to be an activist step one is finding a problem that actually exists and step two is finding a solution that is not only realistic but will actually resolve the problem. Al Gore and friends probably failed at step one and certainly failed at step 2.

Even if reducing CO2 emissions is not detrimental to the environment it is unlikely to do anything beneficial either. Mandating reduction of CO2 emissions will most certainly be harmful economically, especially to developing nations that cannot afford or do not otherwise have access to alternative technologies. How Ironic, Al Gore, liberals and all the other Hollywood idiots riding the global warming bandwagon are usually the same bleeding hearts lecturing us on how we need to help developing nations. Not only that but other dishonest frauds are taking advantage of the general public's belief in this carbon dioxide disaster myth to get rich by selling “carbon-credits.” Check it out. http://www.terrapass.com/.

Don’t be a sucker – next time some jerkoff celebrity, former politician or other talking head tries to sell you something demand some hard scientific evidence.

Answer 2

He isn't any crazier than the average human being (the entire race is kinda irrational to begin with).

But he is kind of a hypocrite heating a 30,000 square foot pool house while moaning about global warming.

It doesn't matter how many carbon credits you purchase, if you are still CONTRIBUTING to the problem, you are still contributing to the problem. Carbon credits don't offset that.

Answer 3

Yes he wrong to use so much energy even without global warming. However, there is global waming and we are a part of it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022801772.html

http://www.wwf.ca/AboutWWF/WhatWeDo/ConservationPrograms/GlobalWarming.asp

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16390346

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/photo_contest.html

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/

Answer 4

At least he's trying to make a positive change in the world. What have you done?

Answer 5

You need to ask a psychiatrist who has treated him, but confidentially would prevent hin from telling you. He is obviously a sanctimonious hypocrite, but that isn't a psychiatric disorder.

Answer 6

Absolutely,,,

Answer 7

Everyone's got a gimmick to make money, Gore got his...

Answer 8

he blew the Rorschach test three times in a row.

Answer 9

No he's sane it's the crack he's on I worry about!