Global Warming: Are You Al Gore's Friend or Foe?

[Shaun]

Yes, I know, this has probably been argued to death, but oh well, we're having it here on YWO and you're stuck with it.

So, do you believe in Global Warming as Al Gore says it? Why or why not?

[Rafael Domination]

I think Al Gore exaggerated it a little tooooo much. I believe in Global Warming, but hey, it's not the first time Earth's climate changed. I mean, there's the Ice Age, and blah-blah, and this, and that. I mean, come on! Shaun and I KNOW humans will survive anything Mama Nature throws at us, and that the animals will simply adapt.

Does it give an excuse for us to continue wrecking out planet! ABSOLUTELY NOT! But my point is...let's not overdo things, shall we?

[Steak-Ums]

I do. But as for your topic title, it's his friend, because as long as it's around as a 'myth' he gets votes from environmentalists.

[Shaun]

I agree Rafael. I think the one thing people are intentionally ignoring is the fact that our planet has done this before. Not to mention, the planet was a lot warmer during the days of the dinosaurs than it is now and that was a normal environment.
I only concede that the planet is changing, but since volcanoes pollute the environment ten times more than humans do I am just not buying the whole "we're causing it" bit. I mean, if that were the case and we are going to stop polluting then we have to put big caps on all the volcanoes...just to be fair :P.

[Ichigo]

I HATE Al Gore....I'm sorry but you can't make a movie about one thing and then start talkin about your sister...
(I'm not sure maybe that was a different movie, if it is, look at his appearence at Live Earth)

So putting aside my theory on Al, I do belive that GW is amung us and we're all going to die.

Naww I don't, but we really do need to start working on this. I ride my bike much more now than I did before, and we recycle more now. I also really like the idea of the Hybrid.

[Shaun]

Good luck on the hybrid thing. The problem is that alternate fuel sources are no present in most of the developed world, so all we have are gas burning cars--even hybrids. Hybrids happen to be more expensive and while you might offset the extra payment by cheaper gas costs, the people that should be using them can't get them either because they don't have the credit or simply don't have enough for a down payment. And the people who have the money don't drive them. So, all the poor can't get them, most of the lower middle class can't, the middle middle class do drive them, but not often, and the upper middle class and the rich buy SUV's...

What ever happened to the hydrogen cell? Clean, long lasting energy that shoots out purified water as a byproduct...I mean...you can't get much better than that...

[GeorgeMichael]

I do believe in Global Warming but not to the extremes that Al Gore does and before I just let it lie but now he's won a Nobel peace Prize for it! That's just not right. Basically I'm anti Gore now...

I would explain more but I'm being rushed out the door to go to school

[Tncowgirl]

I think that the earth has cycles if you will. It can't stay cold all the time cause then it will all become ice so instead it gets really hot to mealt all the ice for a while then cold to rebuild it and it keeps on going like that. Now I do think that we are tearing up our atmosphere, but I don't think that global warming is such a terrible thing, it is just the earth getting rid of unneeded ice that it will just put back when it gets cold again. Thats my two cents.

[Brain]

I think anyone who is a so-called "anti-gore" is just plain dumb. I mean, sure you might think he's overreacting, stretches the truth, whatever. But you can't be against someone whose purpose is to stop global warming. I mean, I can see why you can be anti-bush, because of the war. I can see why you'd be anti-hitler, anti-cheney... but being "anti" someone because you don't agree about GLOBAL WARMING? Get a life already.

Besides. The Nobel Peace Prize congregation has been around a hundred years at least. They've awarded many hard-working, world changing people. Give me a break. Like you know better than them.

People surprise me.

[Shaun]

I think anyone who is a so-called "anti-gore" is just plain dumb. I mean, sure you might think he's overreacting, stretches the truth, whatever. But you can't be against someone whose purpose is to stop global warming. I mean, I can see why you can be anti-bush, because of the war. I can see why you'd be anti-hitler, anti-cheney... but being "anti" someone because you don't agree about GLOBAL WARMING? Get a life already.

The fact that he does overreact, he does stretch the truth, and he represents something that isn't proven as truth are reasons why I don't like Al Gore. Sometimes doing something for the good is actually doing something bad. And also...Al Gore uses 20 times more energy in his home than the average household in America. That should tell you something.

Why should I like Al Gore if what he is saying isn't true? Hmm? Where's the logic? If I can dislike Bush because he says a lot of stuff that is bullcrap and he does things that annoy me, why can't I dislike Gore for the same reasons? Why should Gore be exempt?

Besides. The Nobel Peace Prize congregation has been around a hundred years at least. They've awarded many hard-working, world changing people. Give me a break. Like you know better than them.

People surprise me.

Yes, I do know better than them because the Nobel people are the same people who refuse to give the award for literature to people who actually deserve it. Doris Lessing was the first SF author to win that award, but she certainly wasn't a great SF author. Just because someone gets an award doesn't make them a saint. Plenty of horrible people have won awards...

[Shadow]

I'll not join this debate because I'm probably very ignorant on the subject of Global Warming. But I'll add one thing...

I mean, there's the Ice Age, and blah-blah, and this, and that.

Just so you know, we're in the middle of an Ice Age now. An Ice Age is basically when the North and South Poles of the Earth are surrounded by snow and ice. So, yeah, we're in one now.

[Shaun]

Technically speaking we're not in an ice age. A true ice age is when a good portion of the Earth is actually covered in ice. Check the last ice age. That's the difference from what we're in now.

[Shadow]

Yes, the Arctic and Antarctic are a good portion of the earth. In winter, Antarctica doubles its size, also.

[Shaun]

A period during which the Earth is substantially cooler than usual and a significant portion of its land surface is covered by glaciers.

That's the definition :P. We're not in an Ice Age.

[Shadow]

Glaciologically, ice age is often used to mean a period of ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres; by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).

Ahem...

[Shaun]

You just used Wikipedia to defend your point Shadow...You know how I feel about that place...

[Shadow]

I've not only seen it on Wikipedia. I've read it in books and we learnt it in Geography class.

[Shaun]

Well, I'm sorry to say but we're not living in an Ice Age. It's too warm. And a good portion of the Earth is not covered in ice.

[Shadow]

Well, I'm not saying that all Ice Ages were like the one we're in. This is, by far, the warmest one we've had, and the smallest. But, the definition is clear.

[Shaun]

No, it's not. The last Ice Age was thousands of years ago when most of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice. We don't live in an Ice Age, not by a long shot.

[Shadow]

Well, it's you against the world, Shaun. I've looked it up on several websites, and they all say that we're in an Ice Age.

[Shaun]

I don't know where your sources are coming from, but they're all wrong. If that's the case then there's no such thing as an ice age then. Historically and geographically speaking, the ice age is over. The ices have receded to the poles, for the most part, and Europe isn't covered. That's what an ice age is. The English dictionary refers to it as that.
So unless you have convincing evidence to suggest otherwise, and evidence that discounts scientific studies that prove there have been many ice ages since the last one (i.e. the one commonly called the ice age in which humans lived), then I would like to see it. Otherwise, you have the entire world against you. No significant portion of people are calling today an ice age. More people are calling it a stage of normality threatened by eventual global instabilities.
So, give me your non-wiki sources.

[Brain]

The fact that he does overreact, he does stretch the truth, and he represents something that isn't proven as truth are reasons why I don't like Al Gore. Sometimes doing something for the good is actually doing something bad. And also...Al Gore uses 20 times more energy in his home than the average household in America. That should tell you something.

Why should I like Al Gore if what he is saying isn't true? Hmm? Where's the logic? If I can dislike Bush because he says a lot of stuff that is bullcrap and he does things that annoy me, why can't I dislike Gore for the same reasons? Why should Gore be exempt?



Yes, I do know better than them because the Nobel people are the same people who refuse to give the award for literature to people who actually deserve it. Doris Lessing was the first SF author to win that award, but she certainly wasn't a great SF author. Just because someone gets an award doesn't make them a saint. Plenty of horrible people have won awards...

Ha-hah. If I was in an argument with my friend over whether or not he wastes energy, I could SAY he wastes 20 times the amount of energy a normal person does, but unless I actually prove my point with evidence I am doing a little thing called bullshitting. Which is what you are doing, my friend.

First of all, that logic is totally ridiculous. The Nobel Prize isn't give to people because they are just great people. If a horrible, evil person invented a new form of reusable energy and won the Nobel Prize, he'd deserve it. It's not your quality as a person but the significance of your achievements. Besides, plenty of people HATE Shakespeare but that doesn't mean he isn't a genius in literature. YOU might not like the SF author, but that doesn't mean she wasn't deserving of the award.

The award gives the recipient many millions of dollars... (I can’t remember how much it is now), but at least 50 million or something. Not every great writer can get it, or the Nobel Prize people would be broke).

[Shaun]

Ha-hah. If I was in an argument with my friend over whether or not he wastes energy, I could SAY he wastes 20 times the amount of energy a normal person does, but unless I actually prove my point with evidence I am doing a little thing called bullshitting. Which is what you are doing, my friend.

Actually, what I"m doing is quoting information that is already on the news. But, for your sake I'll spare you the need to actually educate yourself about this particular person and give you links to news reports on the subject. And from various areas:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6401489.stm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54450
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254908,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gores_carbon_fo.html

A simple Google search would have brought all that to the front. Next time do your own research before you question my integrity. It doesn't bode well on your part.

First of all, that logic is totally ridiculous. The Nobel Prize isn't give to people because they are just great people. If a horrible, evil person invented a new form of reusable energy and won the Nobel Prize, he'd deserve it. It's not your quality as a person but the significance of your achievements. Besides, plenty of people HATE Shakespeare but that doesn't mean he isn't a genius in literature. YOU might not like the SF author, but that doesn't mean she wasn't deserving of the award.

The award gives the recipient many millions of dollars... (I can’t remember how much it is now), but at least 50 million or something. Not every great writer can get it, or the Nobel Prize people would be broke).

The award gives 1,600,000, roughly. It's actually a little less. Another search would have brought that information to the front too, rather that spouting out grossly exaggerated figures. So actually it doesn't give many millions, it gives less than many. For a literature person this is a lot of money, for a doctor, etc. it's next to nothing really.

And actually the logic is perfectly acceptable. Otherwise we would have given the award to Nazi doctors, who did disgusting and violent experiments on Jews to discover techniques we use today. Skin grafting, for example, is something we learned from the Holocaust. Or even limb reattachment, which was experimented heavily during the Holocaust. So, again, you're very wrong on that fact.
And I never said I think that Lessing doesn't deserve the award. I simply said she wasn't a great SF writer. She was a good writer though, otherwise she wouldn't have won the award.