English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

How can you say the world is going to end in 10 years because of carbon and then let a major manufacturer of carbon producing vehicles sponsor the event? Must not take it very seriously

2007-07-05 03:05:21 · 14 answers · asked by wallyshields 2 in Environment Global Warming

14 answers

I think Al Gore is a hypocrite. He really does believe people can reduce the problem by reducing the amount of CO2 they emit, but he emits WAY more than the average person himself. Any rich person does, because wealth is intimately tied to CO2 emissions in our energy driven economy. The poorest people emit the least CO2 and the richest people emit the most. Any big event where Al flies in by private jet and thousands of people drive in by car is a big CO2 emitting event.

2007-07-05 03:12:00 · answer #1 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 6 2

Why would this prove that anything is a sham? If a lack of carbon producing vehicles' pollution is a step in the right direction, working with those that are in the business of making these vehicles might be one of the best moves of all in terms of possibly promoting their moving towards newer technologies and away from gasoline-powered vehicles. If GM is going to sponsor this concert series, it's not going to really show anything about the validity of the movement. What if it were Coca-Cola or Microsoft or Exxon? None of the sponsors are going to change the message and the facts will remain the same whether Bill Gates picks up the tab or Bill Clinton foots the bill.

2007-07-05 11:15:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

The many posts about the Live Earth concerts are absurd. People who (foolishly) don't believe global warming is real are complaining? How dishonest is that?

The same goes for pretending that Al Gore's personal life has anything at all to do with whether global warming is real.

Forget about Al Gore. Learn the science. Get a clue. These are good places to start.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/ima...
http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...
http://profend.com/global-warming/...

Conservatives might try listening to these guys:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives Tuesday to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) “It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

Take the political crap to the Politics section.

2007-07-05 17:34:23 · answer #3 · answered by Bob 7 · 0 1

I don't really think the sponsors matter. Chevy is just trying to associate their name with an environmental event because it's good PR for an environmentally unfriendly company. It's not like everyone is going to drive to the event in Chevy trucks. Personally I would prefer if the sponsors were all environmentally friendly companies, but you gotta get money for the thing somewhere.

2007-07-05 12:37:13 · answer #4 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 1 2

Well, of course not. If you want to put on a large event, you have to go to people with the money. Otherwise you end up putting on a little gig at your local park that nobody knows about. So the world gets to see this important message, and Chevy gets to polish up their image as lovers of the earth a little. Who knows, maybe this will prompt Chevy and other US car makers to make more ecological vehicles.

2007-07-05 10:10:17 · answer #5 · answered by TG 7 · 4 1

I tend to agree, that Chevy is not what I would call an "Environmental Fit" to big Al's cause.
Chevy, a company on the verge of bankruptcy, continuing to push sales of its SUV's, Pickups and fullsize cars, their hybrid offerings are the joke of the industry, they killed the electric car and we will never see any of their "Eco" cars touted at the car shows.
All Chevy is interested in is "Hey kids, ain't we neet, rock out and while you're at it go buy one of our gas guzzlers, never mind that the folks had to get a second on the house just to put gas in the tank"!
Big Al, you get more and more difficult to take seriously, oh, that's right, you also invented the internet.
Your cause is just, but you really need a different person delivering the message.

2007-07-05 11:37:00 · answer #6 · answered by groingo 4 · 2 2

I agree. It is another example of a socialist's hypocrital nature. Oh, and in response to the socialist who responded with three websites that PROVE global warming is caused by man and we are all going to die if we don't turn down our air-conditioners today, well I have some websites that speak to the contrary:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=9e919563-e44b-4ca2-9706-8af9cf743c95
and:
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm
and:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHjczyA75jU
and this is just a drop in the proverbial bucket.
There is actual scientific data that you can research that dispells the notions that man is destroying our planet.

2007-07-08 12:00:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No, it just proves that the organizers needed a sponsor for the money to put on the event. And, it could also mean that Chevy is working very hard to clean up and become more green.

Instead of looking at it in a negative, why not try looking at it in a positive way? Also, who cares who it's sponsored by? As long as it raises the awareness it is supposed to, and hopefully gives money to the people it promises to, I don't care if Hitler himself crawled out of his grave and he put up the money for the concert.

2007-07-05 10:16:04 · answer #8 · answered by vtothef 5 · 3 3

No, but it is quite funny since they supposedly "killed the electric car" and along with the oil companies are the satan of the global warming religion.

2007-07-05 17:46:27 · answer #9 · answered by Scott L 4 · 0 0

The truth of this thread, and every other anti-Gore thread is that you don't want to do anything to save the world so you have to try and attack the most convenient target.

It's what they call ad-hominem.

You didn't say the message was bad, because there's overwhelming proof in what he says. Instead you try to attack him.

There are pollution, water and soil problems that even the biggest skeptic can't refute.

Instead of trying to divert attention to the problem, I think you should just go hide under a rock.

2007-07-05 10:38:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 4

fedest.com, questions and answers