|
Shel, the differential we were banking on there was that a majority of people will believe the advertisements and then end up _spending more money_ to fund the whole global warming concept, which is always good to go green, but if the theory about it is fallacious then you just gave someone else some cash.
Thus, certain people (not all) are spending more money which (profits for that company) for something they don't know about, only to follow what someone else told them.
Later on, when confronted about their purchase, they might jump back on and say "well I got it to go green!" when they didn't even know jack squat about it, nor intentionally bought it for that reason.
That's why Gore became apart of this thread.
But we really need to stop discussing about Gore, last time.
a. Gore's following a scientific theory that can be debated.
b. Cheney is banking on some words and random thoughts that have no scientific evidence pertaining to it at all.
Whether this theory is true or not I don't know nor have the brains to figure it out. But I'd like to move on and stop trying to disprove or prove both the Anti-Gore and Pro Gores right and wrong.
__________________
|