Has it changed your perspective in any way, is he a hypocrite cashing in on global warming or is he genuinely concerned, what do you think?
2007-07-22 17:27:12 · 21 answers · asked by Trevor 7 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
It is quite unfair to attack Al Gore who is the man who brought Global Warming to the forefront. It's sad because only a few years ago all you Global Warming enthusiasts were singing his praises.
When "inconvenient Truth" came out, all the Global warming people were saying it was accurate and entire. Now that the Global Warming hypothesis is not appearing as tragic, Global warming alarmists are now saying it's bad but not that bad. Later they will be saying it's not really bad, just inconvenient.
The problem is in the Global Warming hypothesis. Not in Al Gore. He's just a mouth piece to Global warming alarmists. As the Theory keeps failing to predict outcomes, Global Scientists keep changing it to less and less and then claim that's what they've been saying all along.
But if Al Gore is an exaggerator, than so is the IPCC. All he's doing is referring to the IPCC report. He isn't saying anything new. Now that IPCC report is for the record and will be used for years to come as a source book for scientific hoax and exaggerated doomsday scenarios.
Al Gore stuck his neck out and now he's the fall guy. Global Warming enthusiasts got as much mileage from him as they could, made him say the stupidest falsehoods, and now stab him in the back after their attempts to scare us fail, denying they had anything to do with all the lies, falsehoods, and exaggerations in the first place.
So don't try to shift the blame. That's cheap and lacking in honor.
2007-07-23 04:32:16 · answer #1 · answered by Harry H 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
You are incorrect in stating that global warming was beleived before Gore was born. There was a warming trend from 1890 to 1935 or so (more severe than the one we are in now) and then a cooling period until the late seventies. The same environmental alarmist groups that are warning of global warming were predicting the inevitable ice age and "Global Cooling" in the 60's and 70's due to the cooling trend. So when Gore was born Chicken Little had claimed an ice age was the imminent threat, not warming. But the sky,you see, is always falling. Take note that the warming trend from 1890 to 1935 took place prior to the industrial revolution's largest carbon emmissions, and the earth cooled after that period. There is no scientific evidence that Man is responsible. The medeival period was even warmer with even abundantly successful crop seasons in Greenland during the time....and they didnt even have Al Gore flying everywhere in a private jet back then.
2016-05-20 22:37:17 · answer #2 · answered by tamika 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Al's involvement has been a good thing (he's showing how big of hypocites the alarmist are)we wouldn't know that the alarmists were using more than their fair share of earths resorces flying around the globe acting self important. We wouldn't know that he is making big money off carbon credits scam. And I wouldn't know I have double my energy usage for the Next 20 years just catch up with his energy usage in 2006.
GREAT LEADERSHIP AL!
By the way if Al really invented the internet why is he flying all over the globe and NOT using it to save energy like I'm doing right now. I'm actuallly abetter steward of earth than AL is. Besides I can bring facts to my debate.
Danni
2007-07-29 09:30:03 · answer #3 · answered by Danni 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It has definitely been a bad thing. Politicizing an issue usually is. Not only does he exaggerate some facts and totally disregard others (he never mentions that factory farming is one of the largest polluters and that going vegan can greatly reduce one's impact...I guess he didn't want to hack off the meat industry) but he is a gigantic hypocrite. He is only out to further his political career and possibly make a few bucks. He spreads misinformation and panic while contributing to the problem. Live Earth was huge mess, they didn't even have any vegetarian food there, not to mention all the pollution from travel, etc. I felt really bad for the few bands (like AFI) that were actually there to help the cause and not just for PR purposes. Plus it's now turned into a democrat/republican issue and many republicans are against the environment because they see it as siding with the "Godless liberals." The best thing for the environment would be for Al Gore and his kind to reduce their CO2 emissions by shutting their mouths.
2007-07-22 17:59:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
Al Gore's involvement with global warming has been a good thing.
i learned a lot from him about the proper care of our environment as well as the effect of global warming to it.
2007-07-29 19:35:55 · answer #5 · answered by crucifix 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think it's a good thing, however there will always be people who are blinded by their political beliefs who will refuse to believe in global warming not because of scientific proof but that the person championing the cause is some they do not like
2007-07-28 02:43:21 · answer #6 · answered by xg6 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
His involvement has had mixed results.
On the one hand he's generated a lot of awareness of global climate change. Ask a random person on the street about global warming and they'll probably cite 'An Inconvenient Truth', and while the film had its flaws, for the most part it was scientifically sound.
On the other hand, many conservatives use the fact that a famous liberal politician has become the public face of global warming as a reason to dismiss the issue as 'a liberal hoax'. Then again, I think most of these people would have found another reason to dismiss the issue anyway. We've all seen here how good people are at believing what they want to believe, and denying reality in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.
So overall I'd say Gore has definitely had a positive impact. It's pretty freaking obvious that he's generally concerned about global warming, and claims that he's just "cashing in" are just another excuse for people to dismiss the issue summarily.
2007-07-22 17:54:57 · answer #7 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 5⤊ 6⤋
isn't any publicity good publicity?
i believe he is concerned, but he's become sort of a lightning rod for those who don't believe. instead of trashing the science, they trash al gore. maybe this is helpful in that we can find a way to separate the message from the messenger.
my mind was made up long before al gore stepped up to the podium. i distinctly remember writing an essay in grade school about the dangers of aerosol cans, doing the research, and wondering how come i never heard anyone 'famous' talking about this? it made me feel a little bit skeptical about the head in the sand crowd even back then.
maybe there's some 6th grader now who is heartened by the fact that someone 'famous' is talking about the things he or she wants to learn more about, making it more accessible. role models come in all shapes and sizes.
maybe al's not the best, but he's who is 'talking the talk right' now. i am willing to give him credit for that.
2007-07-23 00:52:32 · answer #8 · answered by patzky99 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
A bad thing - Al Gore's, Live Earth Concert was a waste of time. Madonna who performed at the concert has money invested in oil exploration, digging, refining and other environmentally unfriendly companies.
2007-07-22 21:46:04 · answer #9 · answered by Zoey 1 · 5⤊ 2⤋
yes yes, sure it is a good thing, the world knows global warming is seriously gonna attack our generation...Despite the fact that Al Gore drives an SUV in the film...
2007-07-23 04:05:02 · answer #10 · answered by Michelle T 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋