Al Gore groupies: How do you respond to this?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/...

Answer:
They have responded. The best they can do is thoroughly unscientific ad hominem attacks.

Ask them to respond to any specific claim/counter-claim made in the article.
I say give me an example of one thing every single scientist agrees on. There is probably a scientists out there right now who still believes the world is flat.

When you have any group of people who stand up and say they believe something to be true, there will always be another opposing group there saying how it isn't true.
many government officials want to make people feel safer so they focus on other things.
they play mind games, it's all they can do.

oh and this part:

"Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes."

he never claimed GW is "causing" tornadoes. all he was doing is simply summing up the different occurences that have been popping up as the years went on. he did claim that many of these things show great proof of global warming.

bad reporting makes me sick.
I really don't care if you call me a groupie if old Al's wrong if I'm wrong if all your scientist are wrong or right . Maybe your some kind of genius on a quest to prove something i don't know .But how do you explain this screwed up weather that we are having all over the world and what do you plan on doing about it ? Not saying that you or anybody can do anything about it but do you have some kind of plan to protect the people from some kind of major catastrophe ? Or is it your goal in life to just prove Al Gore wrong and then role over and die?
I did not start to believe in Global Warming because of Al Gore

Bill Mollison was already talking about it 40 years ago.

And having seen wide spread desertification in Africa and Mexico,

Each year about 150.000 people die related to Global warming one way or an other ,In 2003 ,3500 people died in Europe alone

Watershortage is a fact ,so is 10% croploss with 1 degree increase in temperature
only a few centimeters rise in Ocean levels ,can cause thousands of hectares to be lost
------------------------------...
As far as Al Gore is concerned
He has managed to get 2 billion people together
Jesus could not do that ,And neither can Billy Graham today

Everybody is picking on Al Gore because of his slightly Narcissistic Movie and his life style ,and even if his facts dont always tally,he is getting a lot of people to cooporate into being more responsible to the Environment .

And many people have admitted that his movie made them aware enough to investigate and become concerned .

For all that ,i still say
3 cheers to Al Gore

who cares what his motives are
It is what results that counts

Only people who do not care for Concerts or this Planet could object to that

Look for how long the waves of Woodstock went on to have significant effects on many peoples way of thinking
Just keep in mind that James M. Taylor the author of this article is funded my Exxon-Mobil.

Just search around for some of his other publications where he praises Exxon and shuns alternative energy.

The fact is, the majority of scientist DO agree with man made global warming theories. The nay sayers are generally funded by large oil companies.

Just think back to when doctors were paid by cigarette companies to say "I choose camels"... 7 out of 10 doctors choose camel, etc... Of course now we see the light only after hundreds of thousands of people have died from smoking, now people believe that smoking is bad. Its an interesting parallel to what is going on today with global warming.
Didn't mean to step on your toes with my question. I do have one thing to say. Al Gore has the biggest mouth and smallest brain in the U.S. right along side of Rossie O'Donnell. Let's expose this hoax for what it is.
the same way i would respond to any other opinion.

it appears that the people who actually made the claim that the glaciers are growing, that was sited in the column, attribute the growth to varying climate changes due to global warming.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

http://www.clipp.org/news/content/244.ph...

matter of fact, here is David Archer, the scientist who the article refers to
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=1...

notice that James taylor didn't site Archer's work, where people could look it up and see that he attributes it to global warming.
I'm not an Al Gore groupie, I'm a science groupie. Most all of the arguments in that article are scientifically refuted here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

The article proves nothing. It's simply propaganda from a very biased source, that looks at a few isolated things in small areas, not the whole picture.

For example, glaciers are growing a few places, but mostly, they're retreating fast. The fact that they are growing in a few places proves nothing.

The author is from the "Heartland Institute", a place whose mission is to spread doubt about global warming, not give a balanced view. They receive funding from ExxonMobil. Here's one of their other projects:

"in 2006 the Heartland Institute partnered with the National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO) in "a campaign to change public opinion about tobacco"

The guy is inconsistent. The article cites the IPCC report of 2007. Aabout one small point, of course. The conclusion of the whole report is that global warming is real and mostly caused by us.

If he considers that a good source, global warming is real and mostly man made. It is, and it is.
I'm not an "Al Gore groupie", but I did already respond to this article.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
I've never heard of "The Heartland Institute," but checked out there website (the source of your article) to learn more.

"Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies."

So if they're looking for solutions, they must think there's a problem, right? That's all Al wants, is to get the dialogue going, to make sure we examine the issue from every angle so appropriate decisions can be made. Scientists are going to differ on their interpretation of the facts. That's part of the process, always has been.

But if you yourself want to make sure you're getting your facts first hand and not regurgitated through media, check out Al's website.

It's about knowledge and action. The rest is superfluous.
They respond the way they do with everything else, "I know you are, but what am I" regretfully they are the ones who are on TV, not the real Scientist.

The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.



More Questions and Answers:
  • Save our trees!?
  • Global warming is a choice. Are you going to do the following to prevent it?
  • If we are making all this ethanol, then where are the cars that uses it?
  • Has anyone noticed that Al Gore is starting to look like Elvis Prestley?
  • How do you guys think ebay impacts the four basic market structures.?
  • How to get my community to recycle?
  • Post-Apocalyptic Landscape?
  • Is the bee shortage a short term problem, or is it a disaster in the making?
  • Why the people are not aware about water scaricity?Is the govt. only responsible for water conservation?