It figures that Newt would wuss out like that.
He's a joke all around.
I read an interview with him yesterday where he wussed out on the 2nd Amendment too. Oh well, we still have 1 1/2 yrs to keep the faith.
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. Along with McCain, he's one of the two '08 pubbie candidates I've decided not to support for the nomination.
He always rolls over/panders in the end. He did it with Bubba and with the Hildebeast. He is not presidential material in any way, shape or form; he is and would be quite weak.
He can talk a good game, though. Better to stay in the classroom where you belong, Newt.
Ok lets get the 5% wrong part out of the way. Both Newt and Kerry agreed that the current warming goes back 400 years. It only goes back about 200. Current reseach shows that there was a cooling period or mini ice age from the early 1400’s to the early 1800’s. Up until about 1810 the Thames River in England froze over sufficiently for London to have fairs on the river annually. After about 1810 those fairs ended. The ice was not solid enough to support the people.
Both Kerry and Newt agreed that carbon dioxide has gone up since the first industrial revolution which began in the 1830’s. Both seemed to suggest that man burning coal oil & wood was the principle reason for the upsurge. Scientists are saying these days that since Mars is currently warming its more likely that the reason the earth is warming has more to do with the suns radience.
More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is an effect rather than a cause.
Still the earth is warming on average and carbon dioxide may be one the reasons for the warming.
So why did Newt agree with Kerry and say not only that there is a problem but that the problem is so urgent that it calls for immediate and dramatic action right now.
Environmental concerns over carbon dioxide and national security concerns over oil dependence on regimes that wish US ill and monetary concerns over the current accounts deficits are three sides of the same problem.
The faster the USA can get out from under dependence on foreign oil the better all around.
The center of the arguement was how to drop carbon dioxide use the fastest and most cost effectively. Kerry was argueing for what he referred to as cap in trade or the Europeans call carbon credits. Cap in trade or carbon credits are disincentives in the form of taxes for carbon dioxide emmissions. Newt was arguing for tax breaks and more federal spending on research. Tax breaks and federal dollars for research are incentives for creating new technologies.
I agree with Newt’s line of reasoning. His arguement that any regime that doesn’t include the indians and the chinese won’t be effective in cutting world wide carbon dioxide emissions. He said the way for India and China to cut their carbon dioxide emissions and — also their dependence on mid east oil was to create the technologies that precluded the need for such things as oil.
He concluded his remarks by mentioning that 100 years ago no on could have imagined the LA that we know today. There simply is no water in the area. There is an amazing amount of technological adaptability at our disposal.
Newt didn’t say so but I think one thing that will happen in the next decade will be that the cost of water desalination will collapse to 1/10 current costs thereby making it possible to turn the deserts of the world green and doubling the size of the habitable planet and reversing the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere.
That single statement of his belief from his own mouth disqualifies him from getting my vote...