If George Bush, instead of Al Gore, had an "inconvenient truth" to tell, would you still feel the same way...?

Question

...about global warming?

I think the context of this question is simple. How often do you take a certain side on an issue just because the announcer came from your camp?

So honestly now, in some alternate universe with leprechauns, vampires, and aliens, George W. Bush delivers the same message Al Gore did to make 100 million dollars off the public, in the same manner, with all the same bright lights and pretty pictures.

If you believe in man-made global warming would you still? If you don't would you then?

Answer 1

Yes I would still believe the same way I do now...I do not base my opinions on what someone else thinks...I base my opinions on what I think.

Answer 2

I am not a partisan hack...

If Bush had made such an effort, I would appreciate it. But the fact is, as Gov of Texas, he had a horrible environmental record. This is a major reason why I would never support him.

For the record, I also feel that Clinton and Gore did minimal effort for environmental goals. I was highly dissappointed. However, Bush's Admin has sought to undermine most environmental regulations (ex. CO2 is NOT a pollutant; gutting Forest Service management plans; undercutting CLinton's last-minute National Monuments, etc)

Answer 3

Actually President Bush supports Al Gore in this area.

In fact, Bush's home in Texas uses a geothermal heat pump to heat and cool.

Bush is actually more "green" than Al Gore.

The conservowackos who argue against taking care of the environment, are just that, WACKOs.

Answer 4

Don't listen to politicians. Listen to expert scientific opinion.

It's silly to change an opinion about a major pending catastrophe such as "Global Warming/Climate Change" based upon what politician says what about it. It seems nonsensical to me.

If George suddenly came to his senses about this threat, I'd have renewed respect for that aspect of his administration, but it would not change my opinion about climate change.

I would never change my opinon about a major environmental issue based solely upon my favorite politician. That's incredibly stupid. I would, however, change my opinion based upon the professional and objective opinions of scientists who study global climate change.

Some of the last five catistrophic species extinctions over the past 650 million years were cause by global warming.

Answer 5

Yes, I would; absolutely.

Frankly, I thought and still think Gore was a horse's patoot, but I have no doubt about either his conviction or his argument with regard to global warming.

Good question, though! There are times when I wonder the same about the Iraq "war," and... oh, wait a sec... wouldn't have happened if the Idiot King weren't "president..."

Answer 6

I think there is global climate change and warming due to the activities of humans. It's for scientists to determine not lying politicians. There is a scientific consensus, so I'll go with that.

Answer 7

Similar to the Iraq war? Yea it is, but Bush doesn't need to make a ridiculous movie to prove what a REAL threat looks like (terrorism)

Answer 8

OR

If a democrat would have "cooked the intel" to led us into a WAR, would the Republicans be so upset there'd be a civil war in America today?

answer: NO because democrats and liberals will NOT FOLLOW someone when they have proven themselves to be incapable and WRONG