better than Bush...
2007-03-26 17:46:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by PiNk IcE 3
·
7⤊
5⤋
Most of the people who find him annoying just want an excuse to keep driving their humongous SUV that gets 8 miles to the gallon. If they put down Al Gore, then somehow that makes their pollution seem OK in their mind.
Also there are many people in our country who believe 9/11 would not have happened if Gore had been president.
2007-03-26 18:15:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
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.
2007-03-28 08:19:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Individual freedom is the dream of our age. It's what our leaders promise to give us, it defines how we think of ourselves and, repeatedly, we have gone to war to impose freedom around the world. But if you step back and look at what freedom actually means for us today, it's a strange and limited kind of freedom.
Politicians promised to liberate us from the old dead hand of bureaucracy, but they have created an evermore controlling system of social management, driven by targets and numbers. Governments committed to freedom of choice have presided over a rise in inequality and a dramatic collapse in social mobility. And abroad, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempt to enforce freedom has led to bloody mayhem and the rise of an authoritarian anti-democratic Islamism. This, in turn, has helped inspire terrorist attacks in Britain. In response, the Government has dismantled long-standing laws designed to protect our freedom.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/noise/?id=trap
2007-03-27 01:56:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
he is the worst. I swear, he is the biggest hypocrite out there. I swear, he needs to practice what he talks about. He is all for this global warming bs, but doesn't live like it. He used alot of energy, flys around all over the place, uses carbon credits which are a bunch of bull, and tries to tell us how to live!! plus, he just is so annoying when he talks!!! ugghh.. i wish he would just go away!!!
2007-03-26 19:20:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by aaron b 4
·
1⤊
3⤋
As annoying as a misquito flying around Rosie O'Donnell's ear during her session of hanging upside down like a bat. He is like a gnat hanging around your food at a picnic. He really needs a good swat.
2007-03-26 18:03:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
Al Gore is not annoying. You need to be asking "How annoying is George Bush"
2007-03-26 17:48:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by f16pilottmo 2
·
8⤊
8⤋
not quite as annoying as a president who sends are men and women to die every day for a war that is unjustified and helps his friends make more money as more of our soilders die for an unjust cause. but you know al gore can be pretty annoying, who wants to hear about the world being destroyed for our future children. i mean come on its kind of a downer.
2007-03-26 17:48:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
8⤊
6⤋
...Not NEARLY as annoying as the next hurricane powered by global warming will be that wipes out half the U.S. East Coast! :)
2007-03-26 18:26:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by Joseph, II 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
Yeah, there just isn't anything more annoying than someone trying to tell you that your house is on fire.
2007-03-26 17:48:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by franson 4
·
9⤊
3⤋
Tell me about it... The guy needs to shut up. Gees
2007-03-26 18:42:15
·
answer #11
·
answered by Coach K 4
·
2⤊
3⤋