Why do people follow what a squirrelly politician, Gore, has to say about scientific things?
Answer:
Man-bear-pig is real.
Most people who acknowledge the reality of global warming do so based on the scientific evidence and don't care what Al Gore has to say.
You're guilty of the thing you accuse others of - you're rejecting global warming science just because you don't like Al Gore. Based on your question clearly you haven't researched the issue.
Stop obsessing about Al Gore and go do some research about the science behind global warming.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:clima...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/62902...
Wait a sec...
you're saying Gore is squirelly?
what about the three stooges that are running this country?
what would you consider them to be?
Yeah, right, pal. Just keep your head in the sand like all the other American Neo-Cons since the Reagan Era. Just keep blaming the Liberals for everything from Global Warming to Gays in the Military.
It's amazing how educated some people, like you Neo-Cons can be, and still be so stupid.
I would try to explain it to you in scientific terms, but I fear you'd just politicize that as well.
May be the sun is expanding according to another theory. But the audiences loved the concerts even though the message did not carry much weight.
I have no idea. I believe the globe is warming based on the evidence. Not sure how much man has to do with it yet. Carbon credits are nothing more than a marketing idea that lets the rich like Gore get away with their lavish lifestyles by using their money to opt out while asking everyone else to sacrifice for the sake of the world.
I think I will become a Radical Islamist it makes me so sick.
Gore never said that he invented the Internet, but that's one of those enduring myths that will not die because people would like to believe it is true, just as some would like to believe that global warming is true, or isn't true, based not on any understanding of the science, but because they choose up sides in any debate for ideological reasons.
Some climate scientists who are concerned about climate change apparently say that Gore overstates the case. Or so I have heard. (I'm not comfortable with hearsay evidence, which is most of what I get regarding this issue here.)
As for citing "scientific proof" that global warming is not the result of human activity, what's your source? If you're going to cite proof, what data set and analysis are you referring to? What articles in a peer-reviewed journal did you read?
I hear lots of climate debate that is exactly as sophisticated and fact based as the two sides saying, "Is so!" and "Is not!" to each other.
I agree that there is an emotional/political motive to wanting to warn that disaster lurks If We Don't Do Something Now. But the motive to say Nothing Is The Matter is also emotional/political. The people debating the loudest are the ones who refer to science, but don't cite any, and probably haven't read any, but are only repeating what pundits are saying. The global warming I am sure of is the hot air generated by most people who debate this issue without any analysis except what their prejudice tells them about the politics of this side of the issue or that side.
Another skeptic that refuses to give evidence and that makes wild claims. Your attempts to discredit AGW, and one of its advocates, are really feeble. It consist of character attacks as a response to factual statements, and name calling. Why don't you provide some evidence? Shouting about Al Gore can be done in the Politics section.
People have listened to Al Gore - as opposed to the thousands of scientists that have presented similar information - because he presents the information in a way that is more accessible to the average person. Also, he presented his argument through the mass media, rather than through scientific journals.
Plus, Al Gore was already famous, which gives anyone more credibility whether they deserve it or not - like Republican presidential "candidate" Fred Thompson.
If a scientist who was already a household name happened to be on stage in An Inconvenient Truth, people would be "following" that guy/girl.
Re: carbon credits, I agree that the consumer version is the "fat free" of environmentalism. But industrial carbon credits, where total emissions are capped for a particular industry and companies can buy and sell credits, have been shown to be effective. The problem with the consumer version is that there is no cap.
And this "Liberal terror" thing is ridiculous - as if the Republicans haven't been trying to scare the hell out of us with the color-coded terror alerts.
al gore speaks as if he's talking to a kindergarten class, and as you can see from most of your responders he and some clever marketers have appealed to the morbidly immature.
I don't follow Al Gore, I follow science. Al Gore has absolutely nothing to do with the science that says global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.
Science has proven (as much as science is ever proven) that global warming is real and mostly caused by us. The most important thing is for you to look at what the scientists say, not what people here (including me) say.
The proof involves large amounts of data and calculations, far too much for here. But here's a simple picture, including the sun, volcanoes, and other things. It shows the basic facts. Until about 50 years ago climate was determined by natural things, like changes in the sun. About 1960 our rapidly increasing production of greenhouse gases, mostly from burning fossil fuels, overwhelmed nature, and is causing things to warm fast, with serious consequences.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/ima...
Almost all of the world's scientists agree about this, because of the scientific data. Don't be fooled by the debates on FunQA.com. There are only a (very) few skeptical scientists. Many are driven by politics, not science. Most all of their "scientific" arguments are answered here:
http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...
Good website for more information, with lots of scientific data and pictures, and links to more detailed discussions and data:
http://profend.com/global-warming/...
So...ya been smokin that funny stuff again heh
Well in my opion people believe in it so much because they think they are the root of all evil and that what ever they do most obviously affect the entire world, because what about volcanoes, or even cattle lol, for they have even proven that these things cause more damage then what humans do. You could probably even convince people that they are pushing the Earth closer to the sun because they have there fans turned up to high. Why because doom and gloom sales.
Judging from this forum there's a whole lot of healthy skepticism about Gore's doomsday scenario. That's a good thing.
I don't understand the fascination with Al Gore either. He is a politician, which a fancy word for "professional liar". Therefore, anything he says is automatically questioned in my mind.
I've always wondered if there are a lot of people out there who are still upset that he lost the Presidency and follow him as some kind of counter voice to Bush.
people do not follow Gore. they follow the Power ... if you are in power they will believe you.. they have to make lip service
the politician means a person who walks on tight rope. he has to support and listen to all.. He has to talk green earth. he has also to talk crude oil , he has to solve unemployment. and he has to talk no arms race, he has to also ensure that arms factories are running 24 hrs so that employement isgenerated..
do not blame politicians .. they reflect what the people are
A few years of no jet engine traffic in the upper atmosphere( above 30,000 ft) and GW will go away.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: