|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Radical leftist James Lee became a militant environmentalist after seeing Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and has held three people hostage when he stormed the lobby of the building where Discovery Channel has their offices. He made demands that people stop having children. Obviously Al Gore had something to do with this man's behavior. Shouldn't Al Gore be made to answer for causing people to behave as eco-terrorists?
I knew someone would be smart enough to show the irony of the tactics of the Left. Cool, Flightkeeper.
You're right (and Hannity on Fox said that too), that if it had been a "Christian" zealot, Christianity would've been blamed.
Hi Brenda. Opportunistic people like Gore have to be made accountable for alarming people and setting them off to do senseless things.
No no no. It's all Bush's fault. We dunno exactly HOW he did it, but it's his fault! He's also responsible for the sinking of the Titanic and all the plagues throughout history
Did Al Gore direct this man to take this action?
Are environmentalists applauding and seeking to justify this action?
Did Christian ministers call for the deaths of doctors from the pulpit?
Did large numbers of Christians applaud and justify the murders of the doctors?
Are you beginning to grasp the difference?
Thank you for bringing reason to this topic. Al Gore presented some scientific data and made some conclusions. This is not the same as what some of the far right has been doing. I don't remember Al Gore ever praying for the death of those who disagreed with him. I don't remember Al Gore telling his followers to take up arms and "start the revolution".
Thousands of people have seen that movie. Have any of the others done this lately?
The guy's responsible for his own behavior. As for Al Gore, I don't think there's enough wattage upstairs to electrify an idea in anyone's mind, lunatic or not.
He should be held responsible for this hostage-taker as much as the Beatles are responsible for Charlie Manson's murders, or Dungeons and Dragons is responsible for a kid committing suicide, or....
Sure just as soon as you make churches responsible for what some of their members have done.
Where have you been, people have been saying that about Christianity for the longest time.
...and yet Christians do not obviously hold themselves no their religion responsible do they? Well then, I suppose that would answer your question. The difference between what Gore said in the movie and say, Beck, would be the direct call for "revolutionary action" manifested by armed movements and under the full support of his "God." Gore didn't call for armed revolt, calling for the removal of a President, or tell people that the scary black guy with the scary name is going to put you into internment camps and it is because he is a secret Muslim, a Manchurian candidate type, trained at the age of 5 to become President of the United States. Gore said, hey, it is getting hotter. (This) proves it. So, when the caps and the permafrost melts, the currents change, and we all die. So, try to recycle and stop letting the oil companies tell you that NOTHING can run a car but their stuff.
I don't hold Christianity responsible for the guy who killed the abortion doctor. I hold the guy responsible, and a little bit to the right wing hate machine that fanned his mania, maneuvering that hatred towards a political end resulting in votes alone. Do you see the difference?
So you blame that nut and the left wing machine that promoted the global warming hysteria. Good, I agree with you.
No, see you aren't getting it, or you are playing for the fun of the debate. The "left wing machine" as you referred to it, being compiled of most of the world, most of the world's scientists in their respective fields, physical evidence like watching a pc of ice the size of a US state fall off of the ice caps via webcam on a ship and looking at picture of the top of mountains that now you could plan incredible fields of vegetables, and the logic that if you lock yourself in a garage and turn on the car, you die...tell the world that we need to work in a positive way such as recycling our trash because their is a continent of trash in the ocean the size of Australia, and to work towards cutting our carbon emission output...being that you can see mountains of clouds of smog above cities while flying over them that we breath, AND to work towards changing our use of fossil fuels towards are renewable energy source as quickly as we can, BEING THAT we are running out, using more everyday, empowering wackadoos who starve their people and give money to other wackadoos who like to blow shit up. Those wackadoos recently said screw you and are going to build better weaponry finally rather than gold plated toilets. So, positive things there.
The opposing Beckadoos say, "hey, screw those dudes. He looks different that you. He is a secret Muslim you know, in league if you will. He wants to build internment camps and force you and your children and your parents into them if you so much as look him in the eyes when he is on TV. Woodrow Wilson wrote this on a book of golden sheet of Jesus paper, and hid them in a hill in northern Moroni, NY, and it told of Israelis who built a golden arch, and Grimace was there. And Grimace said to the people of Mormon that they should get their 2nd Amendment rights back from King Koopa by force if they have to, and they have to do it on Thursday, Sponsored by Blackwater Goldbonds, and they can't bring their signs, but bring your AK, because God loved AKs. You can bring your babies, but they have to have their papers, because we don't want those anchor babies. Wait" Sorry, I might have gotten a few different things confused there. Do you get the picture now?
The left wing machine composed of scientists who are being compensated to find out more about global warming even when their own leaked evidence shows there's no there there -- you mean that left wing machine? And this same libtard machine, without evidence, tells people that the sky is falling unless we don't breed and use altenate fuels that are more expensive and less productive make products less out of reach of the average consumer - I think they're crazier than your Beckadoos, whoever that may be. Gotta love the loony libtard machine calling the kettle black.
Tired old lies.
Got anything new? Is cable down so you can't tune in Fox to see what you are supposed to think today?
Alright, finally...we have it. No amount of information, even if it is physical evidence that you can watch from a live webcam as if you are actually there in real time, will ever matter to this opposing political movement. We have finally established the difference and motivation...thinking people like myself, actual grown people with grown minds are up against fucking 10 yr olds in grown bodies. This is fucking ridiculous. You shitbags have kids for god's sake. I can't believe this. How do you live all of these years with no inclination to actually progress your simple mind? Again, ridiculous. No use.
Very telling, so you do hold churches responsible and you don't consider the person to have his own will. Thanks.
Again, that is bad logic that you are using. I didn't hold churches responsible; I held the person doing the act responsible and a little bit to the right wing hate machine that uses the fold of Christianity in general to rally a base towards a cause of murder and votes. When the radio host tells who does a show on how politicians want to kill your religion because some kid can't read his prayer on the intercom at school "in the name of Jesus", bringing in an angry, conservative, Christian audience, and then spend 2 weeks on why people should kill like this guy did, coupled with politicians use the issue to gain votes and thus "emboldening" (I know you all love that word so much) his base to continue the practice...THEN I hold the movement a bit responsible. I hold them a bit responsible because they were promoting an idea of violence and hatred, and that is a bad thing. That same movement uses the global warming issue to rally its base in the name of religion, since God would never allow that and we are offending Him because we think we can destroy the world, for the benefit of energy companies, many of whom are their largest financial contributors and who they work for after they leave office. The more regulation we impose on those energy companies, the more their margins are hurt, because we are costing them more money in overhead. See how that works? I wanted to be specific for you this time.
I apologize. My grammar sucks. I am usually much better at continuing a thought. I hope it isn't too difficult to follow.
Promoting violence and hatred like when Pelosi calls people who aren't fans of big government and making that known in town halls, Nazis? Or when the dummycrat party doesn't call of the SEIU thugs when attacking people at a town hall meeting. Yeah, so glad that you can spot that from the loony libtards and not lump them in with the dj and conservatives.
Nope. If everyone who says something stupid has to be held accountable for the actions of someone even more stupid who claims his or her stupidity is a direct result of the other person's being stupid, then, well, just wow, almost everyone would be guilty of everything stupid via one causal chain of stupidity or another.
no, everyone is responsible for their own actions. to blame Al Gore, come on. just like blaming the video game makers for teen shootings. doesn't work.
Yes, but people blame Christianity when somebody bombs an abortion clinic.
"People" see Elvis in a toaster oven's rust stain. You can't judge a political position based upon a dude you know who told you Christianity caused the bombing of an abortion clinic that is a liberal. That's just a dude you know, that's it. In order to get the perspective of a political movement, like wanting to know what liberals think about something, go read their printed political positions, or ask about 2000 of them and then write it down and compare. If 80% of EVERY liberal that you have ever known has thought the aforementioned position, then hey, you've got your standpoint. However, I am a liberal, and I know lots and lots of liberals, and only a couple would think that, and they think all kinds of crazy things to begin with. I don't let them walk my dog.
Wow! I heard there were some liberal free thinkers in Texas, but I didn't believe it! Are you the only one? Do you feel safe? LOL!
Funny, I think that 90% of conservatives are normal. It must be your extra 10% leftwingnuts that have hijacked the libtard position. Imagine that.
People don't blame Christianity....
They blame Randall Terry and Operation Resuce.
Because he targets doctors and women seeking abortions.
He put's their names and addresses on his web-site;
Where they work, where their kids go to school...all their names. Targeted for terrorism.
So far, I haven't seen Al Gore do this.
Wow, you are the all seeing hubber they talk about? Gore is a whack job, mob fomenting, film producing opportunist and carbon unit seller that doesn't want to pay his fair share of taxes trying to wake up people with his movie and you don't want to give him credit for this leftwingnut. Outrageous.
We could play the blame game forever, or... take responsibility for our own actions.
Like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton...whoever. The fact of the matter is the right of free speech in America allows clowns like Gore to abuse America for their own financial gain. Those who are not willing to make the connection that Gore and the environment equals big bucks for Al are simply sticking their heads in the sand. Gore is a miserable failure at politics. Short of fanatical religious broadcasts, this is all he has left. One day when Congress passess "Cap N Trade" legislation, we can all send in money to buy carbon credits that will financially benefit Al Gore. He didn't invent the internet but he most certainly invented bullshit! WB
As a pretty much right of center guy I can sum up my answer in one word , no. The guy was a lunatic and it is as simple as that to me.
Bjørn Lomborg the "scientist" quoted by Limbaugh, Hannity, glennbeck, et al to justify their moronic denials of climate change has apparently changed his mind and is now calling for massive funding to avert imminent disaster.
I guess that pretty much leaves it up to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman to lead the crusade against the facts.
Boy, some scientists sure do seem to change their minds a lot. First the earth is hot and then it's cold. They sound like menopausal women! I thought they had the facts down to a T. Guess not.
Typical disdain for science from someone who plainly knows very little about it.
Yes, Brenda, science is constantly searching for truth and reality. Contrast that with your religious beliefs which search for nothing and explain everything with the same useless "God did it".
Science is only as good as the ability of the person doing the research and testing. Mankind is fallible; very much so; conclusions are often drawn from that corner instead of actual fact.
But conclusions drawn from religion are more fallible.
Science adapts as new knowledge is gained, religions stagnates and retards progress.
It's more like...religion (Christianity specifically) has a set foundation from which Believers do not veer. Once we know the Truth, we are totally free within that framework and do not allow the Wicked to enter in with his half-truths or lies.
i think anyone who was actually thinking during the movie could easily have seen that his movie was nonsense.
Whenever he quotes a meaningful statistic, he never backs it up. But the previous sentence to the meaningful statistic always implies a scientist's research.
But he NEVER brings the two together (alright, maybe once or twice).
I walked out of the theater. It was nincumpoopery.
Michael Moore does the same crap.
I agree that if people want to hold Beck's feet to the fire cuz some bozo listened to him and killed someone (or whatever the case was), then we must be consistent. But I don't think that beck or gore or the beatles or salinger are responsible for what other people do.
I WISH i could blame rampantly evil behavior on other people - but that's what little children do.
Wow! You mean I've been misjudging Hitler all of these years?
Gore was right about global climate change. Beck is looney tunes.
Gore has NO idea about climate change. He is no more qualified than you or I. Beck is crazy...like a fox.
On that we are in total agreement. glennbeck and FOX are just plain nuts.
Not sure why you would say that. Not sure how much you know about climate change. I think Gore knows more than I do. I found his movie quite convincing. Most scientists believe we should be concerned about climate change? My knowledge is based mostly on what I read in a variety of newspapers and magazines. Did you happen to read the long article in last week's New Yorker on the Koch brothers. They have spent more than Exxon on warming denial propaganda and against environmental legislation. They have been pouring millions into supporting the Tea Party.
This is whay I would say that:
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore
Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists' dilemma this way: "On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47, Bold Added (Steven Schneider is now Editor of Climate Change Journal)
Jim Hansen: (He controls NASA’s historical climate records):
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.
“The Civil Heretic” was a perfect example of what Freeman Dyson disagrees with: blatant and unfounded exaggeration. Dyson is not a “global-warming heretic”; he does not dispute the science. He simply says, and rightfully so, that the science is both uncertain and very much exaggerated. It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.
Applied Mathematics and Atmospheric Sciences
The man should be responsible for his own actions. He's mentally unstable, and therefore needs treatment, probably in a lock up facility for a while.
As for Gore, he's an opportunist. Maybe he didn't realize the full extent of his pandering lies, and even believed the evidence he was presented with at the time, but he is responsible for his actions only.
The extent of Global Warming was sensationalized. Of course now, we get a more accurate picture of it, which makes "An Inconvenient Truth" a Convenient Lie.
Gore is more stupid in the end, than bad.
No, Al Gore is not responsible for a mentally unstable man behaving in an unstable manner. My question is this: Has Al Gore given a platform to enviromental terrorist, wacko's and the whole "The Sky is falling" crowd? I would say yes. Al Gore has contributed to making a fringe group mainstream.
Fringe group? Concern about climate change is shared by nearly all scientists. Mainstream, not fringe science.
Fringe group = those who will promote their cause through any means. You know like the people in the Oregon/Washingto St that were burning "McMansions".
Climate change has been studied for years now. Concern is shared, conclusions aren't.
I misinterpreted your comment about fringe groups. Ecoterrorists are way out on the fringe.
I beg to differ with you on global climate science. From what I've read the great majority of scientists believe there is ample cause for concern over the contribution to global warming of greenhouse gases from man-made, controllable sources. And many of the deniers have taken money from oil and coal companies. The Koch brothers have been big funders of climate change denial propaganda.
Isn't this what the left says about fox news?
They incite people to rage?
Its very fun to read the hypocrisy spouted on these forums daily.
One important difference. Fox spews lies and hate. Gore tells the truth.
Gore is not a scientist. At best he was duped and lulled into believing Global Warming was far worse than it is. He bought into something and became the opportunist and its icon.
Global Warming is real, but as CJWright has pointed out, it's not nearly as catastrophic as we were lead to believe by Gore and others. Gore was the wanna-be poster child, and he is now reaping the repercussions from trumped up info that the scientific community has finally deflated into what is reality.
Gore is not all wrong. Global Warming is not a hoax.
Truthful scientific reporting wins.
True, Gore is not a scientist. But he is an intelligent man who has pursued an interest in climate and environmental issues since he was in college. His movie is not without flaws, and he doesn't totally "walk the walk," living in a huge house.
One example of a Gore lie?
Here's a Fox lie:
Ann Coulter; the “end goal” for environmentalists (and by implication, liberals) is the “elimination of humans.”
Host Ingraham, her gold cross ostentatiously displayed as usual, had no problem with that remark.
I find the way to view this argument using intellect and reason and reaching a more rounded consensus is to simply ignore the following;
These four are doing far more harm to the environment breathing all that shit in the air.
Their sole reference point seems to be Fox News and a couple of tumbleweed cells rolling through a sparsely populated head.
If the four of them got stuck in an elevator for several hours imagine the paranoia, the accusations, the blame and then the execution of the unlucky one (probably whoever stepped into the elevator first, an underhand trick from a left wing spy no doubt)........
Satire! ain't it just so much fun. Have a good evening Dubya's little helpers :-)
Words have meaning and consequences. Especially if uttered by one on a national if not world stage. You can't preach and then act surprised when an individual responds. Living 25 miles from Carthage and the Gore tribe and knowing the family for the past 30 years I say YES. Hold Al responsible.
by Jeff Berndt5 years ago
So we have freedom of speech in the US, but we also have a crime called "incitement to riot."If you want to commit that crime, what you need to do is get up in front of a group of people, and say some words....
by PhoenixV19 months ago
Will Hillary be held responsible for all the raw sewage her campaign bus is dumping on America?
by agoins6 years ago
Should dating sites be held responsible for relationships gone bad?
by AshtonFirefly24 months ago
Are you offended?Is it just me, or does it seem that you can't go anywhere without someone getting offended at virtually anything you say. Is there a point at which political correctness and consideration of people's...
by Shil19786 years ago
Do You Think Parents Should be Held Responsible For The Actions of Their Children?Children in the age range of 6 to 12 years!! Would also be interested in knowing your thoughts on children in the 12 to 18 year...
by washington Benard4 years ago
Which western leaders should be held responsible for Mohamar Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein's deaths?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.