If global warming were truly caused by humans and their carbon usage, why is al gore banning fossil fuel but n

Question

but not Soda Pop.

Ever time you open a can of Coke or Pepsi, all those little bubbles are escaping into the atmospher. That little fizzy crackly sound isn't cute, it's wrecking the environment, and turning the earth into an oven !! LOL

And when you think you're being funny by BURPING after that big gulp, you are adding even MORE carbon dioxide. 1. Exhaling is mostly carbon dioxide anyways. and.. 2. You added even MORE carbon dioxide to your belch, because you just chugged a bunch of soda pop !!

The real reason is obvious. The global warming n***s know that carbon has nothing to do with global warming. They just want YOU to stop driving your car. They are too chickenshyt to make laws banning cars, so they just tax it until only the rich can afford it.

Remember, al gore wrote a book in the late 80s in which he called the automobile "evil" . Indeed, he called it the most evil invention ever created.

It took al gore 20 years go get his wish, but it's almost in his grasp.

Answer 1

WOW I see the Global Warming nuts out number the thinking public. CO2 is CO2 wether it comes from your breathing or a car, period.  And the CO2 in your beer was not taken from the atmosphere, but is the result of yeast breathing while it was relaesing is waste (alcohol).  Soda works some what on the same princeple, but the carbon is usually gotten from Calcium carbonate, a mineral in the ground, that when it is released into the atmosphere is no different than releasing the CO2 from the oil or coal from the ground.  Al Gore said in the 70's that it would be over 200 degrees in the US's midwest by 2000 due to cars.  He was wrong and is still wrong.  Why do you global warming nuts believe a guy who failed high school science, never took any science in college and has done nothing more than make wrong predictions? Just because he was Vice President and has money, and made a BOGUS movie?

Answer 2

First of all, Al Gore has nothing to do with the science.  What he says or does means NOTHING.

Next, the CO2 is soda pop, our breath, etc. was removed from the air very recently.  Putting it back is no big deal.

CO2 generated by burning fossil fuels was very slowly removed from the air, millions of years ago, by plants.  We put it back, real fast.  That's where the problem is.

Look at this graph.

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/qu...

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase overall is us, burning fossil fuels. The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2.

Answer 3

First off, Al Gore can't ban anything.  He's not emperor of the US.

Secondly, the carbon in soda pop was taken from the natural carbon cycle.  Just like breathing, it doesn't contribute to global warming.

Answer 4

Al Gore doesn't have the power to "ban" fossil fuels.

Some people before me have told you about the CO2 in soft drinks being taken from the air. Besides, compared to the amount of CO2 created by the combustion of fossil fuels, the amount in soda is vanishingly small.

Answer 5

Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation.

The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005.[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations"[1] via an enhanced greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3]

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[5][6][7] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]

Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.[1] This range of values results from the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as models with differing climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a thousand years even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. The delay in reaching equilibrium is a result of the large heat capacity of the oceans.[1]

Increasing global temperature is expected to cause sea level to rise, an increase in the intensity of extreme weather events, and significant changes to the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other expected effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, modifications of trade routes, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

Remaining scientific uncertainties include the amount of warming expected in the future, and how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is ongoing political and public debate worldwide regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences.

Answer 6

Hi,P.S.

What do you mean by this question?

Or on the other hand, What is your goal by asking this question?

Do you want to get something special?

If yes no body will pay attension. You know? Most of the things that we do damege our EARTH. But beacause of their importance or unimportance nobody pay attention.

I like to choose your question for my project's topic. If you want to do it as a project please send an e-mail to me. If your answer was yes we can be a  good group. :-)

Answer 7

Al Gore spent the better part of last year traveling around the world telling everyone what they can't do. He is traveling on private jets, or a big tour bus and responsible for all sorts of garbage left behind from the events he organized, and all the people that went to his "Live Earth: Concerts for a climate in crisis", had to get there somehow, and I doubt they all walked or rode a bike there. He has had concerts in New York, London, Sydney, Tokyo, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg and Hamburg. At these concerts were performing artists like The Police, Genesis, Bon Jovi, Madonna, Kanye West, Kelly Clarkson, Black Eyed Peas and Jack Johnson. How did all these bands get to whatever city they were performing in?

In short, Al Gore has created a larger carbon footprint at one of his several concerts, than I will in my lifetime, an average person who drives a conventionally powered gasoline car.

What are your REAL motives behind all this green talk, Mr. Gore?

Answer 8

Soda is different. Its carbon monoxside that is being produced by cars. It's all about the money for oil. Not the well being of the enviroment or people they don't care about us just money money money. There are solar powered cars but oil companies paied car companies off so they don't make them public. and well known to us, just like they pay off the government so we pay up the a.. just to fill up our car it's all about money.!

Answer 9

If U hate plants that much U may need to stop breathing...

Answer 10

Well it is now very obvious that neither Dana nor Bob have even a slight clue as to where the Co2 used commercially comes from. It is such a rare gas in the atmosphere that it is not economically feasible to extract it from there. Instead all commercially used Co2 is scrubbed from industrial stack gases like power plants and such. They have been doing this since shortly after the First World War or maybe sooner. I know for sure that they were doing it by the late 1920s. Very interesting that two of the greatest critics here of Co2 really know very little about the gas and its real properties other than what their lord and master has informed of publicly.