If Al Gore was a republican, would liberals still support global warming so wholeheartedly?

If Al Gore were a Republican, he wouldn't support "carbon taxes" - he'd come up with some reason why CO2 is a justification to spy on people.

I'm a Libertarian. I wouldn't support that either.

It's a politicized issue but it's not a matter of alignment. It's a matter of freedom, which should transcend all other issues.

It's more of an exaggeration than a lie. Pumping fossil fuels and whatnot into the atmosphere is having a negative impact on the planet (influences on weather, increasing the rate of extinction, melting arctic ice, and so on), but it's not the "we'll all be dead in 30 years!" scenario that many are making it out to be. "Global warming" is a bit of a misnomer anyway, since the potential long-term consequences have more to do with massive flooding and extreme weather patterns than an overall raise in worldwide temperature. Long story short, I am skeptical about a lot of it, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet. It's a bit difficult to ignore the drastic increase in the rate at which arctic ice is melting, which has coincided with the increase in the use of fossil fuels. If you wade through all of the propaganda, you'll discover that there is some truth to all of it. In other words, don't listen to politicians, find out what actual scientists have to say about the subject. There's a pretty big difference between Al Gore "the world is doomed!" global warming, and the actual facts.

Dana- I read the link you posted. Climatologist publishers? It looks a sort of avangelest christian group. Wait, someone is ringing my door bell,,,, It is some people from the church of climatology. They want to talk to me about climate change, and the end of the world. They would like to leave me some charts and graphs

Climatologists overwhelmingly believe in it.

Why wouldn't they? Would they have jobs if they did not?

Can one post some links proving human caused global warming other than, consensus surveys? Where are the studies, that are not just refering to other studies for proof?

In decision-making bodies that use formal consensus, the ability of individuals or small minorities to block agreement gives an enormous advantage to anyone who supports the existing state of affairs. This can mean that a specific state of affairs can continue to exist in an organization long after a majority of members would like it to change

Consensus decision-making is susceptible to all forms of groupthink, the most dramatic being the Abilene paradox. In the Abilene paradox, a group can unanimously agree on a course of action that no individual member of the group desires because no one individual is willing to go against the perceived will of the decision-making body

The most notable of early Western consensus practitioners are the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers

Giving the right to block proposals to all group members may result in the group becoming hostage to an inflexible minority or individual. Furthermore, "opposing such obstructive behavior [can be] construed as an attack on freedom of speech and in turn [harden] resolve on the part of the individual to defend his or her position."[18] As a result, consensus decision-making has the potential to reward the least accommodating group members while punishing the most accommodating.

"Don't worry about saving the plant, save uranus"

"Carbon dioxide is innocent until proven guilty"

Seattle has had temperatures over 100 degrees F recently. They've never had temperatures that high since Seattle started recording temperatures in the 1890s. Sounds like Global Warming to me.

I agree to a certain extent as far as the masses go, but I find it hard to believe that so many scientists would place a political agenda above doing their jobs. More so, the opposition to Global Warming is based on political alignment to a certain extent as well. That is politics though. If one side does one thing, the other side will do the opposite.

I don't think it matters. Believers of AGW are socialists who don't really care who supports their agenda, just so long as they can get political power to control people.

AGW is just the latest attempt to gain total power over the masses. Luckily only about 30% still believe in this nonsense.

It doesn't matter because the politicians see it as a powerful tool and so are behind it 100%. That's why Gore could be from any party. It only takes for a politician to be greedy and power hungry to support AGW. Truth and science don't enter into the picture.

I don't believe in AGW because it has no basis in fact or science. Notice that more and more scientists are coming out against it. Also it takes only a bit of common sense to see that humans can't possibly cause "global warming." We produce 0.001 % of the greenhouse gases. Anyone with a brain can see that we have no real effect, even if the greenhouse effect was what decided climate change.

Any scientist who still believes in it is either funded by left wing rich fat cat socialists or is a complete moron. Both are reasons to be drummed out of the business for lying to the public and being political tools.

I hate political parties.

The supporters of AGW is from environmental zealots. I suppose it just so happens that people who support these sorts of things just turn out to be mostly Liberal since some of them have an overall negative outlook on humanity.

The pushers of AWG are political zealots. You can find those types on both sides.

Al Gore is an idiot regardless of his stance on AGW.

Don't forget that some people, well most people actually, don't live in the United States. As such Al Gore's political stance is pretty meaningless to us. I live in Britain and never took much interest in Al Gore's political campaign. Nor do i base my opinion of global warming on his film.

However, the US is by far the country with the biggest obsession with global warming denial, and conspiracy theories regarding it. I suspect that this is partly because of many people's DISLIKE and mistrust of Al Gore and his politics. Too many of you deniers from the states talk like yours is the only country in the world.

As much as Al Gore did for raising awareness of AGW, I almost wish he didn't.

I'm liberal but I don't support (well I don't really "support" global warming, as I'd rather not see it happen) AGW for that reason. I support it because I take the time to think critically about the science, and that science is telling me that AGW is an issue.

Issues such as this shouldn't be about "us vs. them".

Absolutely.

I am not so blind to follow a party platform that I don't believe in. Al Gore can switch to any party he likes, I will still wholly believe in his Global warming stance.