Local Rep. Tom Emmer on “Climate Porn”

by Matt Martin | 30 Comments

State House Deputy Minority Leader Tom Emmer was on the floor of the State House last week doing his usual “there’s another side to the global warming debate” song and dance. Big surprise, right? Well, what is actually somewhat surprising is the new terminology he’s incorporated into his usual rant: “Al Gore’s Climate Porn.” Wondering how that sounds in context? Fortunately we have the very amusing clip for your viewing pleasure:

Just as a side note, when the GOP was in control of the State House they actively suppressed the discussion of global warming. So, I find it rather amusing to watch these GOPers flail as their responsible counterparts pass wide-ranging, environmentally sound legislation. But that’s just me and, at any rate, I have to return to watching this hot climate porn.

May 14, 2007, 12:28 pm | Category: MN State House and MN State Senate |

30 Responses to “Local Rep. Tom Emmer on “Climate Porn””

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

A Nony Moose
May 14, 2007 at 1:06 pm

If you want to be objective and actually listen to the other side of the story about global warming I’d encourage people to watch this very well done documentary with many established scientists -

The Great Global Warming Swindle - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

Finding alternatives to oil is smart energy policy and will enhance our nation’s future but I’m not sure global warming caused by man made CO2 is the reason we should be doing it.

Reply
Dan
May 14, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Nony, maybe you can give us some YouTube links to documentaries explaining why the Holocaust was a hoax too.

Reply
SeanH
May 14, 2007 at 1:38 pm

If by “very well done” you mean misleading, dishonest and debunked.

Reply
Chris
May 14, 2007 at 2:31 pm

A Nony Moose,

There is no sense in arguing with these people about global warming. To them it is a religion. Otherwise, they would welcome debate on the issue, just as there is debate on other scientific issues. If you want to learn more about this topic, Moose, you should read articles by climatologists at major American universities who argue (1) global warming is caused by solar activity and (2) the computer models used by people like Al Gore to predict future warming are crap.

Reply
Dan
May 14, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Chris, I know what you mean. Whenever I try to explain that the earth is really flat, no one is ever willing to engage in debate.

Reply
Aaron
May 14, 2007 at 2:51 pm

HAHAHahaha yet another MNpublius thread where the crazies against climate porn can showcase their moronic views. “See? THIS GUY IS A REPUTABLE SCIENTIST, just like those thousands and thousands of other scientists that arrived at the opposite conclusion!”

Reply
Chris
May 14, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Dan,

I refer you to the New York Times article, “From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype” dated March 13, 2007. It is a cautionary note about Gore’s hyperbole.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1179288000&en=440338ce5bf39900&ei=5070

As I said before, there is no sense in debating global warming on this site as it has become a religion to people like you.

Reply
SeanH
May 14, 2007 at 3:25 pm

There might be a debate if the denialists would stop bringing up the same old stuff that has been REPEATEDLY debunked. But as it stands the denialists are bringing nothing to the table.

That NY Times piece misidentifies debunked denialists as “rank and file” scientists which simply is not true.

Reply
Chris
May 14, 2007 at 4:03 pm

SeanH shows yet another example that global warming is the new religion of the left. It is absolutely false to be smearing good scientists as denialists. By the way, there is no scientific proof there is global warming caused by CO2 emissions. There is merely consensus. Since when did consensus become part of the scientific method?

Reply
Joe Bodell
May 14, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Actually Chris, consensus is a big part of the scientific method. Always has been. The scientific method explicitly acknowledges that *proving* theories is very difficult to do, and all we can do is examine the evidence. In the case of global warming (oh, and evolution too) all we have to go on is a mountain of evidence in support and a few handfuls of questionable sand (the grainy, smelly stuff you find on mediocre beaches, if you will) which stands with the opposition.

I’m going with the mountain. Applying contrarian political standards to science is not a good way to go, for you or for Rep. Emmer.

Reply
wtm
May 14, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Consensus does not equal correctness. Dissent is patriotic, remember?

If we are denialists, then you are Ptolemaists.

Reply
Avidor
May 14, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Another video showing Tom Emmer being being laughed at when he couldn’t answer whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old.

Reply
Chris
May 14, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Joe,

Applying contrarian political standards? That’s certainly not what the New York Times did when analyzing Gore’s film. Read the article I linked to.

There are many scientists who do not believe global warming is being caused by man. In fact, the father of modern climatology, Dr. Reid A. Bryson, Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin, says it is “absurd” to say man is causing global warming. Here is a link to his article:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=61&pst=852736

Reply
A Nony Moose
May 14, 2007 at 10:14 pm

How many of you actually watched the video I linked to?

You dismiss it automatically because it doesn’t support the message you’ve been told before?

What does it hurt to actually explore the alternatives?

Reply
Dan
May 14, 2007 at 11:47 pm

Again, there are going to be a few dissenters here and there, but the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that mankind is causing climate change. As far as the New York Times article, the arguments are with Gore’s specifics, and not his claim that mankind is affecting the climate. As far as that video goes Nony, I did watch part of it. I find it hard to believe that someone who could sit through that piece of crap and think it was worthwhile enough to forward could actually dress themselves, much less use a computer.

Reply
C U in Hell
May 15, 2007 at 7:10 am

Perhaps all of you missed Emmer’s other speech earlier in the evening, when he declared that the Earth is “several thousand years” old.

Reply
C U in Hell
May 15, 2007 at 7:15 am

Oh, and if you’re looking for another doozy from that same night, check out Rep. Mark Olson’s global warming tirade, in which he describes an experiment he performed in his kitchen with a pitcher of water and some ice cubes that proves that melting the polar ice caps will not cause sea levels to rise.

Reply
A Nony Moose
May 15, 2007 at 7:37 am

“I find it hard to believe that someone who could sit through that piece of crap and think it was worthwhile enough to forward could actually dress themselves, much less use a computer.”

Really? Which part do you disagree with and what evidence or scientist did you not believe? Or do you just dismiss it out of hand because you’ve convinced yourself that global warming is gospel?

As far as the dressing and using a computer goes - nice try at an insult. Do you feel that this proves your point more by trying to put down those that don’t agree with you at face value?

Reply
Kerosene Hat
May 15, 2007 at 7:49 am

Everybody who is attaching the video seems to be proving the main point of the video. The main point I got after watching most of it was that the attitude of those like Gore is dangerous if for no other reason than it claims to be conclusive and no longer open to debate in any way shape or form. The childish name calling by Dan and others makes me think they are more hat air than knowledge or information.

The specifics on this issue are very, very important. Finding out how much global warming is really happening and how much of it is caused by what sources is the only way we can hope to do anything about it. Mankind does not have a good track record of environmental management and I fear the arrogance of the Gore followers, while well intentioned, may give us a solution that is worse than the problem because they are not willing to accept some new discovery.

I don’t deny that global warming is happening or even that we should be doing something about it right now. I do question the fact that the science on this is being turned into a gospel that people will stick to even as the real science evolves and provides better solutions.

Reply
Mockingbird
May 15, 2007 at 9:20 am

Another “side” — - to empirical evidence?

He must have been absent the year they described the scientific process & nature of evidence!

That’s the point of making this vs Gore. As though he is a focal point, so they have someone to try & tear down & not actually address harder things they may have flunked - like science.

Only dumb asses buy into this straw man mentality.

The mechanism:
If they can successfully pull another one of those idiot “alpha male” scenarios, based on applying pack behavior to people - who are not pack animals, rather are tribal — they can argue as though they live in Oz.

Minnesota is not yet on of those pockets of the country which run goofy anti-evolution scenarios on TV that say that neanderthal brow ridges are evidence that people lived to be 600 or 900 years old.

Those only exist in nony the moose’s world?

HEY ROCKY, wanna see me pull another rabbit outta my hat?

Reply
Mockingbird
May 15, 2007 at 10:13 am

Wow. Some soundbite.
Did he clear “Climate Porn” with the slogan makers on the right?

Reply
SeanH
May 15, 2007 at 10:37 am

If the “Great Global Warming Swindle” is such a great piece, why did its makers have to misrepresent themselves to scientists and then quote them out of context to make it seem they supported the film makers point of view? Why did they use demonstrably false information? Why did the network that aired it issue a public apology?

Reply
wtm
May 15, 2007 at 12:33 pm

You know, just like Al Gore, if you guys and gals truly believe YOU are a danger to the environment, then please lead by example and stop posting comments, shut down your computer, and quit using electricity. Now that would be a first true step to solving the global warming crisis.

Reply
Dan
May 16, 2007 at 12:10 am

Nony - while the video was total crap, I’ll apologize for the cheap shot.

Reply
Randy
May 16, 2007 at 8:42 am

wtm — I know leading by example is very important to Republicans. That is why Presidnet Bush’s daughters are serving so bravely in Iraq.

Reply
Kerosene Hat
May 16, 2007 at 9:12 am

Nice Randy. The tried and true “but they do it too” defense.

Reply
Randy
May 16, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Kerosene — Yes, and it’s a polemical device I don’t care for, I admit. On the other hand, if we’re going to make comments about who is leading by example, and how important that is, is it not a fair comment?

What I don’t understand is why any discussion of global warming eventually comes down to “Al Gore sucks.” Al Gore is only the best-known publicist. Liking him or disliking him should have nothing to do with the science behind global warming. The science is there, regardless of Mr. Gore’s actions — that is what should be discussed.

Reply
Chris
May 16, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Randy,

Interesting points. I think the reason Al Gore is an issue here is because he is the leading person pushing the global warming issue. His film, an Inconvenient Truth, is being played on practically every college campus in the country not to mention in high schools, senior centers, etc. Gore and his film are certainly fair game. Especially when his film and his actions are disputed by some prominent scientists.

Reply
Mockingbird
May 17, 2007 at 8:07 am

“…are disputed by SOME prominent scientists.”
____

There’s them deniers & their beliefs…

We keep hearing there is “no consensus” -
from those fringe people who adamantly refuse to accept the data of practically the entire scientific community.
A scientific community which is clear that global warming exists & that human activity is affecting the climate. There are consequences.

How many “SOMES” in the quote at the top of this post - contradict the overwhelming preponderance of evidence about global warming & expert opinion?

To deny “CONSENSUS,” yet rely on such exact words like “SOME?”

All the noise about Global Warming - the nay-saying in particular; those deniers really revel in the line that they don’t get a fair hearing. They really don’t want one.

Their position has to keep whittling away, because it can’t stand up very well under scrutiny. Neocons playing politics with issues like this is stupid.

Reply
Chris
May 19, 2007 at 11:25 am

After trying to figure it out for months I realized ho Emmer looks like….its Chris Farley (sorry chris).

I can not think of the SNL skit that its from though, can anyone think which one I’m talking about?

Either way its to bad that this a real representative and not an SNL skit, it would be a lot funnier if it were.

Reply