If someone does not believe in global warming wouldn't that make them a freethinker?

Question

I thought you libs thought that was a good thing!

Answer 1

No, it would make you an idiot. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Facts are supposed to the the point around which debate forms. the facts should never be debated by those wishing to push their own agenda.

Global warming is a fact. Start "freethinking" us ways out of it buster!

Answer 2

OK just a few Facts on Global warming . Does it exist? Yes. What is the biggest contributor? Water Vapors! (bet ya didn't know that one ) Does Carbon dioxide have any effect on it? NO! Do cows produce harmful gasses that increase Global warming ? this one is still up in the air but I have my doubts about that one . What is the main tool we use to monitor Global Warming? Satellites. Which is a problem do to there has not been enough time elapsed since they started tracking it making it difficult to compare Data.Is it a threat to earth in the next 100 years? At first they thought It might have some effect but the more Data that comes in they are saying getting hit by a meteor is greater threat and doubt that will happen in the next 100 years. Is man responsible for Global warming? No it's a natural occurrence.

Answer 3

I don't get the question.
Wh would that make them a freethinker, and what's a lib?
Who told you that was a good thing?
Why are you asking a question and already asume a negative answer?

As far as I can comprehend your jargon, I don't think that people who do not believe in global warming are freethinkers.

Just like I don't think that people who do not believe a thermometer telling them they have a fever are freethinkers.

Answer 4

Not believing is generally a pretty good indicator of free thought - beleif, aka, Faith, tends to cut down on the thinking a bit. But, a negative belief is not different than a positive one. The unexamined belief in global warming, and the unexamined denial of it fall into the same category.

So how you reached your conclusion has something to do with it.

Answer 5

Maybe, that depends on what they're basing their thinking. If they think that global warming isn't happening, it doesn't mean they're a free thinker, it means they're ignorant:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

If they think humans aren't contributing to global warming, they're probably uninformed or misinformed, because all the scientific data suggests otherwise:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf

So it depends on what you mean by "free thinker". My definition is someone who examines all the evidence and maybe comes up with a conclusion outside the box. That's very hard to do with the overwhelming anthropogenic global warming evidence - you'd have to be a climate science expert with an idea that no other climate scientists have come up with to explain the acceleration of global warming.

Answer 6

You are the new Liberal! I second your thoughts so lets call ourselves Conservative Liberal Freethinkers it is awesome and true! AL Gore loves carbon burgers!

Answer 7

like saying 2 + 2 = 5 ? so that makes me a free thinker ?

the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.
the fact is, since then the globe has been warming.
really.

Answer 8

Nothing wrong with being a freethinker, but when what you're doing is denying a massive scientific consensus, you're not just a freethinker, you're a buffoon.

Answer 9

WOW THEIR ARE ALLOT OF AL GORE BOTS HERE. WELL HERE IS HOW YOUR SPOKES MAN LIVES . HE WANTS YOU TO DO WITH OUT SO THAT HE CAN DO WITH . WAKE UP FOOLS HE IS JUST A SPEAKER NOTHING ELSE HE DOESN'T BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS.

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore received $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operated a zinc concession on his property until 2003. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Answer 10

You're a free thinker if you believe in what they believe.