Skip to comments.The Greening of Gingrich (Newt joins the ecotard chorus)
Posted on 04/10/2007 1:19:25 PM PDT by xjcsa
In a heavily hyped debate one that environmentalist Democrats hoped would be a smack down on Republicans -- former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich disappointed them and conservatives alike when he declared that human activity was causing the Earth to warm.
The concession was made in a debate on global warming with Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) today on Capitol Hill that was sponsored by the Brookings Institution and the RAND Corporation.
In his first portion of allotted time Gingrich said there were two undisputed areas of scientific consensus on global warming: that the earth is getting hotter and the warming had been caused by human activity.
At one point, Kerry asked Gingrich what he would say to conservatives like Sen. James Inhofe (R.-Okla.) who do not believe global warming is caused by human activity. Gingrich said, "The evidence is sufficient that we should move to the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon."
We should be moving to develop all kinds of new green technology, Gingrich said. He challenged Kerry to find market-based solutions to reduce carbon emission instead of increasing environmental regulations.
Regulation and litigation are the least effective ways of getting solutions, the former Speaker said. Reshaping markets with incentives are the fastest way.
Kerry argued that environment laws drafted with help from the United Nations have been successful.
Kerry said the laws were needed to create the leverage and the market so they would go out and invest in the technology because they dont invest without it. Government regulation, he said is the only way to invite people to make that investment.
We are not arguing bureaucracy and regulation. We are arguing whether putting a price on carbon is bureaucracy.
Kerry said it was not. This is not bureaucracy. You set the standard the market will set the price, he said. We all live in a world where we dont pay for the cost. We dont pay for the loss of fish, we dont pay for the lost of these species. None of that is priced into the goods today.
Before launching into his initial speech, Gingrich endorsed the book Kerry had co-authored with his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry "This Moment on Earth.".
This is excellent, this is a very good book, he said. I would commend this book to anyone who wants to see local leadership make a difference. Gingrich said he didnt agree with about 60% of it but would urge others to read it because its an example of individual local leadership against the odds.
Gingrichs concession was expected in many news circles as part of his long-shot strategy to run for President in 2008. He has said since last year that he would make a decision to run or not sometime in the fall of this year. He is planning to release a new book, "Contract with the Earth" this November that he co-wrote with conservationist Terry Maples.
Yesterday, in his weekly email newsletter Winning the Future Gingrich said that September 27 would be Solutions Day. This is to honor the 13th anniversary of his 1994 Contract with America.
Last week, Gingrich called the Spanish language a ghetto language. Immediately after the mishap, he recorded an extensive apology, in Spanish, directed to the Hispanic community that made available on YouTube. Last month, he revealed to Focus on the Familys James Dobson that he had an extramarital affair on Dobsons radio show.
In January, Gingrich appeared at a hearing conducted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to talk about how to stabilize Iraq.
It is one thing to say that human activity COULD be contributing to the (undeniable) short-term warming trend, which may also simply be a natural fluctuation. I personally see in the data the possibility that humans are having a small effect, and that this effect is dominated by natural solar and terrestrial cycles and quasi-random fluctuations; our poor understanding of these phenomena underpin the uncertainty in attributing a magnitude of blame to human activity.
It is no secret (except to the public, through the machinations of grant-junkies and the ignorant and/or lying press) that all current models for predicting future climate trends explicitly assume model parameters corresponding to the ascribing of all short-term heating to human activity. There are currently no "ab initio" climate models capable of back-reconstructing more than a decade or two of climate data; the interesting thing here is that multiple models, with vastly different dynamics and input parameters, lead to basically any reconstruction you want to cook up. Independent tests of the models - for example, checking how robust they are by back-reconstructing over twice the timescale - are not yet possible. The field is that immature (I mean that in the scientific sense - this is indeed science, and very important science, but the field is at such an early stage that it is the height of irresponsibility to impose current findings upon the scientifically untrained individuals who form public policy).
There are some interesting perspectives on that Takeover thing.
But that said, I completely agree with you. We need to thank him for his service and send him home. Wish we could do that with a lot more politicians a lot more frequently.
Yes. I will maintain the list. This is nothing new; Newt has held this position for a while.
Do I agree with him? No.
But it’s not a deal breaker, because I think he will offer more sensible solutions than the other candidates.
I don’t know which of the other candidates don’t buy into the global warming schtick.
No to Rudy, McInsane, Romney and now, Newt.
Boy, the ‘Pubbies are fielding a lousy bunch of candidates. Go Hunter/Thompson!
That just isn't true. There is no consensus on either point. There isn't a day goes by that I don't read a story or two from scientists disputing one or both. There is an online petition (the Petition Project) that now has over 17,000 signatures, most of them by scientists who refute the case for global warming. I believe the it can be found at oism.org.
Joined at the hip with Grover Norquist. Have you heard about their environmental non profit with Gale Norton? It was going before Gale was named sec. of Interior.
CREA was founded in 1998 by Gale Norton, George W. Bush's Bush's Secretary of the Interior.
In a profile of Norton, the Natural Resources Defense Council wrote of CREA that "true pro-environment Republicans, the Republicans for Environmental Protection, have called her group a 'green scam'."
1. BACK SCRATCHING AND GREENWASHING
The Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, a nonprofit organization founded by Interior Secretary Gale Norton and Grover Norquist, has been subpoenaed by "an interagency criminal task force investigating former lobbyist Jack Abramoff." Abramoff and associates are being investigated for "their dealings with Indian tribes." CREA received significant contributions from tribes represented by Abramoff, as a quid pro quo for help with "the tribes' lobbying of the Interior Department," according to anonymous sources. CREA is a "staunch supporter of the Bush administration's environmental policies," and has been called a "greenscam" by Republicans for Environmental Protection, for taking mining, logging, chemical and coal industry money.
SOURCE: The Hill, March 1, 2005
I guess he figured he wasn’t going to get the GOP Pres nod anyway, so why not go for broke?
Boy, the Pubbies are fielding a lousy bunch of candidates. Go Hunter/Thompson!
I hope they don’t disappoint the FREEPERS! That is not a good thing to do. lol.
Gingrich is not now and, essentially since 1995 when the Clintonoids got onto his affair, has not been a reliable conservative. They probably used the affair to blackmail him into not mounting an aggressive campaign against Clinton and, ever since then, he's essentially been a eunuch.
Exactly. I noticed that the 1993 'Republican Revolution' died once all those FBI files were discovered in the White House basement. Gingrich's neutering was amongst the most prominent.
I had mixed emotions when I heard about the crime, and I noticed its immediate fallout.
Sure, blackmailing is a dastardly crime - but on the other hand, do our congressfolks all have that much to hide? ... unfortunately that is a rhetorical question - I'm not requesting an answer.
“Last month, he revealed to Focus on the Familys James Dobson that he had an extramarital affair on Dobsons radio show.
Having an affair on the radio show seems excessively exhibitionistic.
Republicans always wuss out on tough issues instead of trying to actually debate the issue. Look at the prescription drug benefit bill that will bankrupt America.
Newt has wussed out before (the government shutdown) and will always wuss out.
Maybe of our so-called leading candidates will wuss out on any big issue.
As I have stated in the past Gingrich is a coward and a liar.
I recorded this on DVD and am watching it now
it is boring!
That does it for me. I was a Newt supporter until this debate. Now he can go to hell for all I care. I have no respect for any man who would give in to the left on such an important issue.
Actually the IPCC Clowns are only saying that it is "very likely" with a 90% probability of being human induced. So, it's not a closed case given the IPCC's 10% uncertainty.
Well, hell. Is Imhofe running?