Monday, March 31, 2008

I don't think the world is flat?

As many of us heard Al Gore was bashing the global warming skeptics once again. This time he may have took it to far, in fact being skeptical of the anthropogenic global warming theory I was offended. This is what Al Gore had to say on his 60 minutes interview:

Reporter: "There's still a lot of skepticism about whether global warming is man made."

Gore: "I don't think there's a lot. I think there’s…"

Reporter: "Well, there's pretty impressive people like the vice president. He said, 'We don't know what causes it.'"

Gore: "You’re talking about Dick Cheney."

Reporter: "Yeah, but others. And they say: we don’t know what causes it and why spend all this money till we really know."

Gore: "I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it’s not that far off."

First of all this is a man who refuses to have a one on one debate with a a skeptic of global warming. Why is this? He claims that "the debate is over" but it isn't. This is a man who has told the people of this planet that global warming is real and cause by man and calls it a "fact", for him to call it fact means that he is lieing because there is not one solid piece of evidence that supports the theory, not one. This same man is making millions upon millions of dollars with his political agenda, and he claims oil company's are in it for the money, what about him? Also, this planet has millions of starving people and instead of helping out that large population of the earth Gore would rather have money go toward bio-fuels (which don't help reduce emissions), research renewable engery (which I agree with, but others things are more important), and ofcourse running oil company's out of business. And while all this happens, millions in other countries and our own die from starvation and disease. And to think that this man won the nobel peace prize, he seems more like the anti-christ to me...

That might sound a little harsh, but think about it? Should we try to stop something that we are only guessing is happening? Gore claims the earth "has a fever", well if someone you loved was said to be sick but the doctors didn't know what it was and wanted to treat them by giving them dangerous drugs or operation that could kill them, would you let them? Would you let them treat a loved one for something they are just "guessing" they have, wouldn't you want tests done to prove it? Evidence? Then why would we let them mess with our planet, and our economy for something they are just "guessing" about? Think about it...


Andy said...

While I understand your (very valid) concerns over the plight of millions in the developing world, it has been stated time and time again that those most affect by climate change will be those in the developing world. The fight to halt global warming will play a large part in the fight to reduce degradation of farming lands in Africa. You could almost (not quite) say that it's two birds with one stone.

Darren Milliron said...

Their is no proof or any idea of what global warming will actually do to certain parts of the world. During the medieval warm period (a period much warmer than now) populations shot up, health and disease became less widespread, and life was good (relative for those times anyway).

So by trying to "stop global warming" we might be killing two birds with one stone. That being our economy and also the people that we should have/could have helped.

Once again, you need proof before you can treat the illness, if it's even treatable. Do we have proof? NO! So how do we know what to treat for? This is my point...