What would be the difference if Al Gore was a republican candidate?

It's hard to picture a Republican who cares about the environment these days, isn't it?

Assuming Al Gore were a Republican and had the same views on global warming and were still effectively the subject's spokesperson, there would certainly be much less Republican opposition to carbon regulation.

Let's just change perspective and say Dick Cheney or George W. Bush or Mitt Romney or someone similar were very vocal about the dangers of AGW. It would be very difficult in that situation for the Republican Party to be the anti-science, anti-AGW party that it is today.

I don't think the 'liberal side' would have less support for AGW. To most of us it's not a political issue. I think Dick Cheney is an evil bastard, but if he were the spokesperson for AGW, it wouldn't change my opinion on the subject one iota, because my position is based on the scientific evidence. Which is why like you, the denier obsession with Al Gore makes no sense to me (except that he's an easy target).

Frankly it really is unfortunate that no prominent Republicans are willing to step up and attribute as much importance to AGW as it necessitates. Arnold Schwarzenegger is probably the closest thing to a prominent Republican AGW proponent, and he's just a governor, albeit of the most populated and best state in the country.

As a side note, Conservative's answer cracked me up. Obama, who went to Columbia and Harvard Law School, and Gore, who went to Harvard and Vanderbilt Law School, are stupid. And yes, the Republican Party which elected George W. Bush president twice, tried to make Sarah Palin VP, and had Dan Quayle as their VP for 4 years - that's the more intelligent party. LOL!

Side note #2 - Nata also cracks me up. Republicans are the honest party? Yeah, Republicans would never lie to trick us into going to war...oh, whoops. LOL! Not to mention the fact that Gore hasn't lied about AGW, of course.

Side note #3 - I love the irony of the name"Voice of Reason".

The Nobel Prize has substitute right into a comedian tale. The prize replaced into given to Jimmy Carter who won it as a results of fact he bashed the U. S.. different than that his purely declare to attractiveness replaced into his inept handling of the unique Iranian disaster. This disaster delivered relating to the 1st islamofascist government and helped to convey us the present terrorism difficulty. perhaps the committee nominated him as a results of fact he created a lot of jobs for wannabe peacemakers. in addition they gave the "peace" prize to between the main infamous terrorists of out time, Yassar Arafat. Giving the prize to Al Gore is a comedian tale however the prize itself has substitute right into a comedian tale so why dollar the rage.

None - he would still be a liar and inept interpreter of science. And yes, liberals would give less support to AGW because while GW is science, AGW is a political ideology.

Edit: Wake up on the wrong side of the bed Dana? Mocking my username is typical of the ad hominem responses we've all come to expect from those who have no valid or logical rebuttal. Just because others haven’t fallen for the AGW nonsense hook, line, and sinker doesn’t mean they are not intelligent. The real irony is that when liberals are confronted with the truth, they change the subject or resort to childishness.

"If you want to anger a conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a liberal, tell him the truth."

All politicians lie?

So at least you admit Obama is no better than the rest.

If Al Gore were a republican, he wouldn't support leftist ideologies. I am pretty critical of McCain. He is an honorable man that doesn't know the first thing about science. Al Gore is probably an honorable man that is simply a little deranged in the head. He has visions of inventing things, having movies made about him, and saving the world.

Then he would be just another Republican In Name Only who would be rejected by the more intelligent just like McCain was.

I'm a Libertarian, not a Republican, but I suspect that conservative groups would refer to him as a RINO, much in the way they refer to Snowe, Hagel, McCain, etc...

He would still be a complete laughing stock only this time the leftists would agree with the "deniers".

no. Your question is illogical, because a Republican wouldn't have lied like he did on this subject.

If he still were a global warming chicken little, he'd still be a global warming chicken little.

Al Gore a Republican?

He's too stupid. Not as stupid as Barack Hussein Obama, but he's pretty stupid.