# Why do teabaggers think liberals are fearful? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 31, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001 "2010-10-31T20:08:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/102 "2010-12-09T18:49:28Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Since the early seventies I’ve seen the left wholeheartedly embrace and wail to the heavens that the world is running out of trees, out of oil, out of ozone, that an ice age is coming, that global warming is coming, and now apparently the oceans are dying. I grew up around Denver in the 1960-70’s. A brown cloud hanging over the City was so common that it was worth remarking on when it was absent. This is not the case when I visit today, and yet there is far more car traffic today, and the are has spread and in-filled to where the population has probably doubled if not more, and yet people actually run in the downtown area without the burning throats and coughing fits that made it better to wait for the next bus in the early 1980s. I have no doubt, that if today’s cars were what we had in the 70’s people would be dying just from trying to breath. Detroit and other automakers didn’t start making cars that didn’t pollute to high heavens, especially at altitude, until EPA regulations forced the change. It took real money to build out the light rail system and HOV lanes. These things have made a huge difference that anyone who was there can see and smell and taste. Market forces won’t make it happen due to the tragedy of the commons. What is done for the good of all is pretty much against nearly every individual’s self interest. Only when we all agree to suffer a bit for the collective good can these changes happen, and government is the way we make such agreements. Yes, a few individuals with the means to do it can buy a Prius, but it won’t make the air better until the cheaper/less green options are denied the self serving among us. As for the trees and the oil, I can only take it that you haven’t been following the price trends of gasoline and lumber. ---
**Author:** ![kauffner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e9c0ed/32.png) [@kauffner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kauffner)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/103 "2010-12-25T13:14:44Z")
Fearmongering is what modern liberalism is all about: Fear of global warming, ozone hole, DDT, energy crisis, overpopulation, and resource depletion. Many kids nowadays are having it drilled into them that they won’t have a future, that the world will be flooded and boiling by the time they grow up. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/104 "2010-12-25T13:26:24Z")
> [@kauffner](#): > > Fearmongering is what modern liberalism is all about: Fear of global warming, ozone hole, DDT, energy crisis, overpopulation, and resource depletion. Many kids nowadays are having it drilled into them that they won’t have a future, that the world will be flooded and boiling by the time they grow up. Don’t you mean: “Many kids nowadays are having it drilled into them that they won’t have a future, that the world will be flooded and boiling by the time they grow up, _unless there is change_”? ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/105 "2010-12-25T13:54:31Z")
> [@kauffner](#): > > Fearmongering is what modern liberalism is all about: Fear of global warming, ozone hole, DDT, energy crisis, overpopulation, and resource depletion. Many kids nowadays are having it drilled into them that they won’t have a future, that the world will be flooded and boiling by the time they grow up. Yes, and many other kids are having it drilled into them that there is a real threat that their children will grow up in a Spanish-speaking country under Sharia law where white people aren’t the majority and gays can throw it in your face that they’re married. Yeah, sure, liberals are fearmongers and conservatives are completely chill. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/106 "2010-12-25T14:30:09Z")
> [@thethunderchild](#): > > 1. Watching the Florida aquifers - not to mention the Everglades - dry up because god forbid we should keep other people from coming to the state that is running out of water. The same can be said for California. You do know that the majority of influx of population to both states over the years has been _ **Americans from other states** _, don’t you? Unless we establish internal passports, the only thing Florida could do would be post a big sign on I-95 that says “we ain’t building one damn more housing unit at any price nor are we permitting one damn more plant or business to open here”. That particular problem is an externality of an economic policy based on growth for growth’s own sake, but we really don’t yet have anything better to offer in the short run except “settling for less”, and neither the rich, the poor, the middle, the left, the right, nor anyone, seems to embrace that proposition. In any case I must also coment that some of the posters simply have reiterated the position that Liberals (or Conservatives) are afraid or are fearmongers, or their perception of what is it that the Liberals or Conservatives fear. EVERYONE fears something. Or if you don’t like “fear” then at least everyone is wary of something. But is it really a matter that the political alignments are BASED upon fear? If I supported certain policies because I believed it would be a bad thing if soviet-style communism became dominant, was that “fear”? If I support certain policies because I believe clean air and healthy children are worth more than rising stock values, is that “fear”? Or is really very often just a rhetorical device to degrade what the other side values, or to galvanize those who are potentially sympathetic but won’t act unless given a sense of urgency? ---
**Author:** ![kauffner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e9c0ed/32.png) [@kauffner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kauffner)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/107 "2010-12-25T16:40:07Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#): > > Don’t you mean: “Many kids nowadays are having it drilled into them that they won’t have a future, that the world will be flooded and boiling by the time they grow up, _unless there is change_”? Gore talks about a global warming apocalypse in 10 ten years. According to Paul Ehrlich on overpopulation or the Club of Rome on resource depletion, we all be starving already. > [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > Yes, and many other kids are having it drilled into them that there is a real threat that their children will grow up in a Spanish-speaking country under Sharia law where white people aren’t the majority and gays can throw it in your face that they’re married. Yeah, sure, liberals are fearmongers and conservatives are completely chill. :rolleyes: I never said that conservatives don’t fear anything, although this seems to be more of a list of predictions that the liberal press celebrates triumphetly. Iran giving some terrorist group a nuke to blow up New York while Obama patiently explains to them that he actually has a Muslim middle name – there’s something to fear. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/108 "2010-12-25T17:25:37Z")
> [@kauffner](#): > > Gore talks about a global warming apocalypse in 10 ten years. According to Paul Ehrlich on overpopulation or the Club of Rome on resource depletion, we all be starving already. Cite please, as usual what I see here is not what Gore said. > [@kauffner](#): > > I never said that conservatives don’t fear anything, although this seems to be more of a list of predictions that the liberal press celebrates triumphetly. Iran giving some terrorist group a nuke to blow up New York while Obama patiently explains to them that he actually has a Muslim middle name – there’s something to fear. Fear itself? The reality is that if that were the case Iran would become a crater. Iran is being reckless, but I do not think that they would go mad and give the technology to groups that caused the US to rain destruction upon nations that did not support those groups even. ---
**Author:** ![kauffner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e9c0ed/32.png) [@kauffner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kauffner)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/109 "2010-12-25T19:47:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Cite please, as usual what I see here is not what Gore said. “Humanity (has) ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.” This is from his movie’s web site. It was put up in 2006, so we now have 6 years to live. " > [@](#): > > The reality is that if that were the case Iran would become a crater. Iran is being reckless, but I do not think that they would go mad and give the technology to groups that caused the US to rain destruction upon nations that did not support those groups even. You’re counting on Obama to nuke Iran?? If he doesn’t act to prevent Iran from getting nukes, that means he’s made a decision not to act. A blast might not even interrupt his vacation. After 9/11, the former Clinton administration poohbahs took to the airwaves to tell us not to retaliate in any way. In any case, the leaders of Iran are ready to sacrifice the Iranian people to help bring about final apocalypse and the coming the 12th Imam, or at least they say they are. They have sacrificed a great deal over many years to get nukes. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/110 "2010-12-25T20:37:26Z")
> [@kauffner](#): > > “Humanity (has) ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.” This is from his movie’s web site. It was put up in 2006, so we now have 6 years to live. Read it again, it does not say apocalypse or the end of the world. And considering what took place in Pakistan and Russia this year I think he was on the money. > [@kauffner](#): > > You’re counting on Obama to nuke Iran?? If he doesn’t act to prevent Iran from getting nukes, that means he’s made a decision not to act. A blast might not even interrupt his vacation. After 9/11, the former Clinton administration poohbahs took to the airwaves to tell us not to retaliate in any way. In any case, the leaders of Iran are ready to sacrifice the Iranian people to help bring about final apocalypse and the coming the 12th Imam, or at least they say they are. They have sacrificed a great deal over many years to get nukes. And here I see yet again a failure of reading properly, the issue was the Iranians giving weapons to unreliable terrorists, if you have missed the news, many do follow the wishes of Saudi Arabia in the sense that if terrorists get a hand on a nuke, one likely target would be Iran. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/111 "2010-12-25T20:50:24Z")
But I will let this Republican professor at BYU explain why scientists do not dismiss Al Gore like many on the right would like. > **[“Why Don’t You Bash Al Gore?”](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/why-dont-you-bash-al-gore/)** > > Since I took the plunge and started publicly criticizing certain climate change contrarians, notably certain Utah politicians and Christopher Monckton, people on the other side of the fence have of… > [@](#): > > “Why don’t you criticize Al Gore for all his misrepresentations?” The implication is that I, and others like me, are being intellectually dishonest by selectively criticizing only those who are pushing for doing nothing about climate change, while ignoring “alarmists” who exaggerate. > > If you really want to fathom why scientists like me typically don’t get all worked up about Al Gore, you have to understand a couple things from the outset. > > 1. Scientists expect journalists **and popularizers** to get a few things wrong when explaining scientific work. > > Most scientific work is pretty specialized, technical stuff. It isn’t easy to take something like that and boil it down for popular consumption without glossing over a few important points. The problem becomes worse when we try to explain our work in simplified terms to a journalist or popularizer, who will then try to boil it down even more for the masses. Boiling down technical information is a tricky balancing act, and it often takes an expert to tell when simplification crosses the line into blatant error. > > The most extreme example I know of is the time a geophysicist colleague of mine was interviewed by a reporter from the student newspaper. He told the reporter how he uses seismic waves to figure out what is under the surface of the Earth, e.g., he can locate features like the Moho, which marks the transition between the crust and mantle. My friend went on to explain that bats use a similar strategy to locate bugs like mosquitos, except that bats use sound waves instead of seismic waves. When the article came out, it included a “quotation” in which my friend supposedly said that he could use seismic waves to find a mosquito at the Moho. > > The upshot is that scientists are usually pretty resigned to the fact that the popular media is going to botch some of the details, so we’re generally happy if they get the overall gist right. > > 1. Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, is not that bad, frankly. > > Yes, there are a couple errors. Yes, in a few cases he focuses on “worst-case scenarios,” rather than communicating the full range of risk. But the fact is that he got the most important points right, and the problems aren’t that serious from the perspective of most scientists who have examined the movie. Tim Lambert collected reactions from a number of scientists about a list of nine alleged errors in the movie, for example. While they didn’t always agree about the status of individual “errors,” there was general agreement that the list was too long. In most cases, it was questionable whether they were really errors at all. > > In the cases where Gore presented “worst-case scenarios” instead of depicting the full range of risk, try to look at it from the perspective of the scientists involved. The vast majority of scientists are saying, “Human-induced climate change is very likely to be a very big problem, and somewhat likely to be a very, very big problem.” Are they supposed to get all worked up when a popularizer like Gore goes around saying it will be a very, very big problem? The reaction of most scientists has been exactly what it should be. ”Well, maybe he overstated his case somewhat, but he got the gist right.” > > Now, contrast this with someone like Christopher Monckton, who goes about proclaiming that climate change is a “non-problem,” and to support his case he completely misrepresents the scientific literature he cites. Whom do you think scientists are going to want to spend their time criticizing? > > And no, I didn’t vote for Gore. So, besides being an attempt to kill the messenger, dismissing Gore is just an excuse to ignore that the science he mentioned still supports almost all of what he said. ---
**Author:** ![kauffner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e9c0ed/32.png) [@kauffner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kauffner)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/112 "2010-12-26T04:44:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So, besides being an attempt to kill the messenger, dismissing Gore is just an excuse to ignore that the science he mentioned still supports almost all of what he said. Freeman Dyson is one of the most prominent scientists alive today, possibly even a better source than Al Gore or some guy on a blog. Check it out: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/JTSxubKfTBU/hqdefault.jpg "Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 1of2 Bogus Climate Models") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU) > **[The Question of Global Warming | Freeman Dyson](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2008/06/12/the-question-of-global-warming/)** > > I begin this review with a prologue, describing the measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/113 "2010-12-26T05:19:55Z")
> [@kauffner](#): > > Freeman Dyson is one of the most prominent scientists alive today, possibly even a better source than Al Gore or some guy on a blog. Check it out: Uh, no he is not a good source. And once again, you are not sounding credible at all when you describe a professor at BYU as “some guy on a blog” > **[RealClimate: Freeman Dyson’s selective vision](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/freeman-dysons-selective-vision/)** > > RealClimate: In the New York Review of Books, Freeman Dyson reviews two recent ones about global warming, but his review is mostly shaped by his own rather selective vision. 1. Carbon emissions are not a problem because in a few years genetic... > [@](#): > > In the New York Review of Books, Freeman Dyson reviews two recent ones about global warming, but his review is mostly shaped by his own rather selective vision. > \*1. Carbon emissions are not a problem because in a few years genetic > engineers will develop “carbon-eating trees” that will sequester carbon in soils. \*Ah, the famed Dyson vision thing, this is what we came for. The seasonal cycle in atmospheric CO2 shows that the lifetime of a CO2 molecule in the air before it is exchanged with another in the land biosphere is about 12 years. Therefore if the trees could simply be persuaded to drop diamonds instead of leaves, repairing the damage to the atmosphere could be fast, I suppose. The problem here, unrecognized by Dyson, is that the business-as-usual he’s defending would release almost as much carbon to the air by the end of the century as the entire reservoir of carbon stored on land, in living things and in soils combined. The land carbon reservoir would have to double in size in order keep up with us. This is too visionary for me to bet the farm on. > [@](#): > > 1. \*Majority scientists are contemptuous of those in the minority who don’t believe in the dangers of climate change. \* > I often find myself contemptuous of efforts to misrepresent science to a lay audience. The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. It’s made up to look like science, but it’s PR. We have documented Lindzen’s tortured and twisted representation of the science to non-scientists here and here. If Lindzen had a credible argument to support his gut feeling (and apparently Dyson’s), I can promise that I for one would take it seriously. I’ve got kids at home whose future I worry about. If Lindzen were right, no one would be happier about that than me. But I do get contemptuous of BS. [http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/15/freeman-dyson-climate-crackpot/](http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/15/freeman-dyson-climate-crackpot/) > [@](#): > > Dyson says many things that are just plain wrong: “There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global.” Uhh, no. The warming is global — as every set of data makes clear — that’s why it’s called global warming. > > He says the “fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated” because he is certain the climate models do not reflect reality. I agree they don’t reflect reality– but that leads me to the opposite conclusion. Dyson fails to ask whether the simplifications and omissions in climate models lead them to overestimate or underestimate climate impacts. So far, they have underestimated things like Arctic ice loss, mass loss of the great ice sheets, and sea-level rise. They don’t model many feedbacks very well, and we know today that most feedbacks are amplifying. > > No nonsense essay would be complete without a nonsense solution. He believes “the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management” and that the entire climate problem can be solved by increasing topsoil: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > We do not know whether intelligent land-management could increase the growth of the topsoil reservoir by four billion tons of carbon per year, the amount needed to stop the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. > > > > ``` > > Actually we kinda do know. The best data suggest we are losing billions of tons of topsoil each year. A major effort will be required just to stop that loss rate from increasing sharply. Indeed, global warming itself is projected to cause both increased flooding, which washes away topsoil, and increased droughts, which destroy topsoil. > [@](#): > > The entire essay is riddled with the kind of mistakes and dubious assertions we saw in Crichton’s novel. One final point. Dyson asserts: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > They [climate models] do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models. > > > > ``` > > Uhh, no. Climate modelers are skeptical like all scientists, but contrary to what Dyson says, they do base their models on real-world data, and their models are passable at modeling what has actually happened to the climate so far. As noted, where they have been inadequate is in underestimating the impacts we have felt so far. > > But what really irritates me about this statement — which implies climate modelers are ivory tower theoreticians with no connection to the real world –is that it comes from someone who is an ivory tower theoretician with no connection to the real world, without the most basic understanding of climate science or climate scientists (has he gone to the trouble of talking to any?), a man who actually believed it was a good idea to pursue powering a spacecraft with nuclear detonations. People who live in glass greenhouses shouldn’t throw stones. ---
**Author:** ![kauffner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e9c0ed/32.png) [@kauffner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kauffner)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/114 "2010-12-26T05:47:53Z")
It doesn’t sound like you even bothered read Dyson. Yes, I’m sure he makes mistakes. I’m also sure that the realclimate people disagree with what he says, and so what? One point Dyson makes is that no matter what you believe about the climate, economic growth and technical advances will give us the tools and resources to deal whatever is coming. This is the opposite of the Gore solution, which is basically to shut the economy down. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/115 "2010-12-26T05:53:01Z")
> [@kauffner](#): > > “Humanity (has) ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.” This is from his movie’s web site. It was put up in 2006, so we now have 6 years to live. That’s not what he said. He didn’t say “we’re going to die in 10 years.” He said “we’re going to have a major catastrophe if we don’t act in the next 10 years.” Whatever disagreement you have with Gore about climatology - and he did make some extreme predictions - misinterpreting what he said isn’t going to help. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/116 "2010-12-26T05:55:03Z")
> [@kauffner](#): > > It doesn’t sound like you even bothered read Dyson. Yes, I’m sure he makes mistakes. I’m also sure that the realclimate people disagree with what he says, and so what? They are scientists too (the OP’s at RealClimate), and they demonstrate where the consensus is. > [@kauffner](#): > > One point Dyson makes is that no matter what you believe about the climate, (This just makes him a really useless source) > [@kauffner](#): > > economic growth and technical advances will give us the tools and resources to deal whatever is coming. This is the opposite of the Gore solution, which is basically to shut the economy down. Cite? That is not his say so, but what teabaggers and denier republicans say. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/117 "2010-12-26T06:07:11Z")
I forgot to add that even Dyson has admitted that he is not an expert in this matter and he is not currently engaged in the research. [http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151](http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151) It is the experts in Climate Research or related science that we have to rely on; and no, **scientists are not experts on everything** , they specialize and then become experts. > **[potholer54](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/8/qZzwRwFDXw0)** > > The purpose of this channel is to explain in simple terms the conclusions of scientific research, and correct some of the unsourced crap we hear from bloggers, politicians and the media. I am a former science journalist (see the "Who I am" video)... ---
**Author:** ![Banaticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a6a055/32.png) [@Banaticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banaticus)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/118 "2010-12-26T10:56:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The reality is that if that were the case Iran would become a crater. Iran is being reckless, but I do not think that they would go mad and give the technology to groups that caused the US to rain destruction upon nations that did not support those groups even. But doesn’t President Ahmadinejad believe that the second coming of Jesus Christ is nigh (Muslims don’t believe that Jesus Christ will come back as the Son of God, but rather as a prophet from Allah)? Hasn’t he also stated that this cannot happen until the world is filled with chaos and the Mahdi has been leading the war against the Antichrist? I do believe he’s also said that the US is the Antichrist, hasn’t he? It kind of seems like his religious beliefs would encourage driving America to war, especially a war with Iran. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/119 "2010-12-26T17:59:06Z")
> [@Banaticus](#): > > But doesn’t President Ahmadinejad believe that the second coming of Jesus Christ is nigh (Muslims don’t believe that Jesus Christ will come back as the Son of God, but rather as a prophet from Allah)? Hasn’t he also stated that this cannot happen until the world is filled with chaos and the Mahdi has been leading the war against the Antichrist? I do believe he’s also said that the US is the Antichrist, hasn’t he? > > It kind of seems like his religious beliefs would encourage driving America to war, especially a war with Iran. I would also remember how very religious rapture guys like Ted Haggard (Gay homophobe) had the ear of George Bush and gave him guidance on the way to the Iraq War. The difference IMO is that the US was not stupid to gave weapons of mass destruction to a third party expecting them to hit on Iraq, when it would be more likely that the US would be the target. The problem that is ignored here is that Bin Laden and company are radical wahabbi (radicals of an already radical Muslim group), and wahabbi’s see Shia Islam (Iran) as an evil twisting of their faith. I still think that Iran is being reckless, but they are not idiots, they will not give nukes to the terrorists willingly, the most likely way for terrorists to get a hold of nukes will be on places like Pakistan. If the government falls down I expect a mad scramble for the weapons there. ---
**Author:** ![Giant\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/779978/32.png) [@Giant\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giant_Robot)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/120 "2010-12-28T19:25:41Z")
[![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/XXd17TJ_m3Q/hqdefault.jpg "Obama uses the "Politics of Fear" to push through his legislation") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXd17TJ_m3Q) ---
**Author:** ![El\_Gui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@El\_Gui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Gui)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001/121 "2010-12-29T19:27:25Z")
Looks like conservatives might be the fearful ones? > **[Technology Intelligence](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/)** > > Tech news and expert opinion from The Telegraph's technology team. Read articles and watch video on the tech giants and innovative startups. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-teabaggers-think-liberals-are-fearful/559001.md?page=7)