Has the GOP explained how Al Gore is creating all the storms and melting the glaciers?
Asked by
ETpro (
34605
)
April 3rd, 2012
According to the right, including the solid South that is getting pounded by multiple tornadoes again today, global warming has been proven to be a hoax. Al Gore and environmentalists have bribed the world’s scientific community to push the hoax in order to profit from unnecessary solutions to rising levels of human made CO2. It is utterly impossible that the global fossil fuel industry, with revenues of $37 trillion per year, might influence the debate in any way. Only Al Gore, with his vastly superior $100 million war chest, has the sort of money it would take to pull off something on this scale.
So how is Al Gore making tornadoes and floods, and melting the world’s glaciers? Is it even possible that the South might eventually get enough grief from their subsidize big oil and drill baby drill energy policy that they will change their tune? Does evidence contrary to their right-wing ideology even have any influence in their thinking? How bad must it get for evidence to be evaluated even when it conflicts with ideology?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
40 Answers
I thought global climate change deniers had given up on denying that change is happening, and shifted to a rejection of anthropogenic climate change (“It’s all natural cycles”).
Apparently, for most of the GOP, these are the end times. That means that we need to get rid of all taxes to make sure the ultra-rich accumulate as much as possible before Christ comes back. Apparently you can (if you are well-to-do christian) take it with you.
It is so depressing how scientific fact has been submerged beneath political agendas.
The GOP has their own scientists signing a petition ...but even that hasn’t been kept up with since 2008. It seems the consensus is to be stick in the muds, no matter the cost to the world.
Ahhhh… it really is all so amusing, 70’s there was the global cooling scare which was bogus and now there’s the denying of global warming which is bogus, so I’m gonna go out on a limb and call the left and the right both idiotic.
What storms?
What glaciers?
What hoax?
What is warming up?
Do the people (mainly Republicans) who push to “drill baby drill” bother to listen to the scientists that say there really is not that much oil in the US?
@GracieT lol ever hear of Green River Basin? 1.5 trillion barrels worth of oil lies therein of which .75–1 trillion can be obtained from the oil shale which is still more than what Saudi Arabia could hope to put out alone. There is a lot of oil available in the US.
@King_Pariah, thank you for that link. I see that I was very wrong, and need to do some research!
@GracieT No problem :)
“that link” got to me, each one is a seperate link so it should be those links
“It is now abundantly clear that we have at our fingertips all of the tools we need to solve the climate crisis. The only missing ingredient is collective will and my book you really must buy!”
Visit OurChoiceTheBook.com or at leading retailers…
Amazon
Barnes and Noble
Borders
Indie Bound
’
All AL wants to do is sell books and will write anything to do so. More pseudo science!
All I need is my collective will to put up with all this BS. XD
I am just amazed at how many climate experts we have on futher.
I’m amazed by how many versions of Rock we have ~
I don’t believe in global warming? Holy shit! That’s news to me! I didn’t even get a god damn memo!
Since you apparently know more about my own beliefs than I do, please tell me more facts that represent the entire republican party! Because clearly, we are only allowed to have one fucking opinion.
@cheebdragon You did get the memo…but you folded it into a paper fan before you read it!
@cruiser I did in fact make a paper airplane this week, but I made it out of the PTA sign up form from my sons school. It was a pretty bitchin airplane though, if I do say so myself….several students in my sons class asked me to make them one…
Only the kids who had health insurance got one because I just found out this week that I also think the uninsured people should just die…I would be so lost without ETpros infinite knowledge of all republicans political views.
@cheebdragon You have just started an anti-global warming grass roots effort in that teaching each child to make a paper air plane who will now be emboldened to teach other friends and family members. One may even make it on Oprah and next thing you know hundreds of thousands of paper air planes will be soaring in the air and cooling off the atmosphere and all that paper will be recycled which will reduce the methane out put of landfills….OMG girl…you single handedly have solved out global warning issue!! Just watch your back for a really pissed of Tipper Gore! She does not take it lightly on anyone infringing on AL’s book sales and speaker engagements. ;)
I can’t tell what responses here are satire. But I have noticed that there is a deep anti-science sentiment that seems to permeate many questions on fluther. What’s going on here?
@tom_g
I didn’t know you were the decider of what is science and what is politics.
@Rock2 – Seriously, I am not sure you are making sincere attempts to converse here. Basic scientific literacy is attainable. For starters, I would recommend looking into the concept of scientific consensus.
@tom_g
“scientific consensus” is an oxymoron.
I guess that answers my question. bye.
Seems to me that conservatives (aka the political right) have at the core of their values, “I got mine, get your own your damn self!”
Future generations hung out to dry (or disappear under hurricane tidal surges)? It’s their own fault for not getting born sooner.
@Rock2 If you are incapable of reading the dictionary and understanding what “Consensus” even means, you have no place in a discussion of science.
@ETpro
Science is a process where hypotheses are formed, tested, the results analyzed and a conclusion is reached. It is not a popularity contest. Nowhere in the science procedure does it mention consensus. I’ll accept your apology.
@ETpro Dude, time to go back on the meds.
@Rock2 Not so. That takes us up to accepting or rejecting the hypothesis. It does not take the hypothesis to the point of being widely accepted as a theory. To get to that level, after analysis of results, they must be published in a peer reviewed journal and other peers around the world review them, look for holes in the procedure, make other predictions based on the hypothesis, and either run the same experiment/s described in the journal to verify the results; or run other experiments to test whether other logical predictions based on the hypothesis prove true. Nothing is accepted as a theory just because 1 scientist hypothesized it, ran their own experiment, then reported that they had found themselves to be right. Consensus is required for that.
@ETpro
Peer review is certainly worth trying to get but it has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Many years ago most doctors believed that stomach ulcers were caused by over acidity and they treated patients by giving them a bland diet. When that didn’t work, they blamed it on the patient not following the diet close enough. Then a doctor theorized it was caused by an infection and treated it with antibiotics. He was sucessful. He was mocked by the medical community for 10 years before any of them took him seriously. Today, antibiotics are the treatment of choice for all patients with ulcers.
Just because some theory has consensus doesn’t mean that the hypothesis is valid. Science is the continuous search for truth. Good scientists never assume they have answered all questions.
The way consensus is used today is different, like in global warming. It is proposed that if a lot of scientists believe it it’s true. That is silly. There is no mention of peer review. No national debates and someone has to answer the skeptics. None of that is hapenning. The people who have monetary interest flood the news.
A good scientist doesn’t believe everything he thinks. That includes about the scientific method.
@Rock2: “The way consensus is used today is different, like in global warming. It is proposed that if a lot of scientists believe it it’s true. That is silly. There is no mention of peer review. No national debates and someone has to answer the skeptics. None of that is hapenning.”
Nobody says that since we have consensus that something is “true”. No, it means that independent attempts to study a problem are coming up with similar results. When we step back and analyze the conclusions of the vast majority of scientific bodies, we see that there appears to be consensus. And of course there is debate (how much is anthropogenic, etc). However – and this is important – national debate means shit to science. Science is not democracy. You have to go where the data leads you. So, national debates occur outside of science. Politicians can use data and twist data as much as they want. But the science is pretty clear at this point. And the “someone has to answer to the skeptics” line is meaningless in a scientific context. That’s what science is – skepticism. It’s a brutal, competitive environment that encourages science that alters current scientific explanations. Skepticism can’t just be non-scientific cranks, however.
@Rock2: “The people who have monetary interest flood the news.”
So, the oil industry floods the news? Are you trying to undermine your argument here? I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Oh, you do realize that the “scientific understanding of something has changed” claim is merely a recognition that science works, right?
@tom_g “Science is not democracy.”
That’s how this all started, you talking about “scientific consensus”.
@ETpro
Oh, are you trying to form a consensus? If you do, does that make you more right than me?
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
