posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 07:18 AM
a reply to: Krazysh0t
That is a poor debate tactic, agreed. But it is no more so than him getting involved in the first place.
Like it or not, Global Warming proponents chose Albert Gore Jr. as a spokesperson many years ago. They also chose to use a transparent advertising
campaign full of questionable statements before that. The whole theory was commercialized, sanitized, and packaged in a nice neat little
easy-to-swallow pill. I remember the national advertising campaign that used 5-second spots to announce something huge was coming, building
anticipation for what would then be announced as a carbon footprint.
Then, of course, "An Inconvenient Truth," one of the most laughable attempts to make a politician look like a scientist I have ever seen, was released
to a massive round of accolades. For a while, Gore was hailed as the next coming of Einstein in the MSM. I had the opposite opinion: I was actually
getting on board the fiery flood train until I watched it. You can blame Gore for waking me up. The more I tried to validate his statements, the more
I realized what a load of poppy-cock Global Warming was. Now here we are, many years later, well past the time frame we were originally supposed to
need a new hurricane scale to measure superstorms, cities were supposed to be underwater, and drought was supposed to have caused a massive worldwide
I'm quite sure everyone advocating the theory wishes Gore would go away. But it just doesn't work like that. Global Warming was introduced to the
public using him as a spokesman, and political pressure was used to try and ram ridiculous 'solutions' down people's throats. You don't get do-overs
in politics, and you don't get to wipe out previous claims in science. What's done is done.
If you want to 'tune out' anyone who brings up Al Gore, that's your prerogative. But I for one am not going to tune out history.