New Emails Reveal Fraud of Climate Science ( This is from NEWSWEEK...)

Forbes reports on a release of a new batch of emails where prominent climate scientists reveal that they actively deleted protected emails in an attempt to avoid releasing evidence that the data does not support alleged man-made warming. According to the Forbes report:

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Newt explained on Special Report (Fox News) the reason he thought the sitdown might be useful, and he admitted that it was one of the stupidest things he's ever done because Nazi Pelicanosi's progressives tried to use it to convey something he did not intend. Putting the time frame on th picture, he was already outspoken in opposition to the gorebull AGW seas rising, etc and made that appearance in tiny Waxman's fraudulent committee hearing to detail why Gore is full of crap.

Before I could support Newt, I needed to know what the hay was the sitdown with the queen of lies and deceit sll sbout. When I looked closely at the timeline I then accepted Newt's explanation given on Special Report and have since been supporting him for the nomination and to be the next President of the United States. There is a subtle bonus to a Gingrich presidency.

By electing the man who helped to impeach the sinkEmperor, voting Americans can send a message to the democrap party that their lying degeneracy is repudiated and we believe in forgiveness from the source the democrat progressives disavow in order to ceaselessly defend the lying presidents they favor.

What is the Gingrich party line about the Kerry/Gingrich Global Warming debate? I see a lot of pushback on the Pelosi Couch Trip, but not much about the Kerry "Debate".

Kerry, Gingrich debate global warming:

Gingrich said Kerry's new book, "This Moment on Earth: Today's New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future," is "a very interesting read" and said he agrees with 60 percent of it.
...
Gingrich, the former House speaker, said a government cap amounts to more regulation and more lawsuits: "America changes much faster in the marketplace. We can move very rapidly if we're moving there as consumers."
...
Kerry asked what Gingrich would say to Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who calls global warming a hoax. "My message, I think, is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move toward the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere," Gingrich replied.

John Kerry, Newt Gingrich take on Environment, Each Other:

But how they said they would tackle the global warming problem is where they differed.
Talking from a podium in the Russell Senate Office Building, Gingrich argued that a program including cash prizes, targeted tax cuts and other economic incentives will lure business entrepreneurs to develop technology to tackle the climate problem. He said that type of program would be faster than a bureaucratic government program because it will avoid the rush of special interests to avoid regulation and costly litigation.
...
Gingrich began first with a concession to his opponent. Holding the new book by Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Gingrich said, "This is a very good book. As a clearly right-wing reader, I would commend the book" as one that shows examples of local leadership on environmental issues. "I would agree with about 60 percent of this book," he added.
...
Gingrich said he will be pushing for a way to deal with climate change that is not heavy on regulation — a point on which he criticized Kerry's plan. "I want to suggest that we need a new science- and technology-based, entrepreneurial, market-oriented and locally led environmentalism," Gingrich said.
...
KERRY: "What would you say to Sen. Inhofe and others in the Senate who are resisting even science? What's your message to them here today?"
GINGRICH: "My message, I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere —"
KERRY:"And do it urgently, now?"
GINGRICH:"Urgently, yes"
...
Gingrich said there must be a "green conservatism." "There has to be a willingness to stand up and say, alright, here's the right way to solve these as seen by our values system," Gingrich said. Gingrich said there needs to be more money available in the form of incentives to find better ways of bringing forward new technology.

Politifact (cited only to get quote from Kerry/Gingrich debate:

"We should address it and we should address it very actively," [Gingrich] said in the debate, citing a UN report documenting the earth’s rising temperatures. "The … consensus is that humans have contributed to that. I don't think there's any consensus that we are the only contribution, but there is a clear agreement that human activity has helped increase the level of warmness."
...
"And cap-and-trade, by the way, for sulfuric acid and acid rain -- which I voted for and helped pass as the Republican whip -- was a very definable number of plants. A carbon cap in trade, if it's universal, is enormously complicated and transfers an amazing amount of power to a Washington bureaucracy and will create, inevitably, winners and losers and will become politicized overnight."
...
"I'm not automatically saying that coercion and bureaucracy isn't an answer. I just don't think it's as positive and as creative an answer as market incentives in terms of getting the kind of change we want."

FreeRepublic Discussion: Flashback: Kerry and Gingrich Hugging Trees... -- Although it wasn't much of a discussion, nobody posted a comment dealing with what Newt said, it was mostly a Perry-bashing session.

YouTube video -- 7 minutes of the Gingrich/Kerry debate -- Heavily edited though; can't find a full debate video, but it should be in the c-span archives somewhere.

It is possible to simply accept that what Gingrich says now is what he will do, and to trust him. It is hard to ignore everything he said in the past 5 years, or pretend he said the opposite of what we see him saying.

Shills like you seem to think Newt Gingrich was supposed to know the ‘globull warming evidence’ was false. I take it you’re so smart that you have known by scientific evidence right from the start that global warming is not occurring. ... And if you say that, you’re a liar. People like you make me sick. What you’re doing is deceit, plain and simple. Newt Gingrich does believe humans need to clean up our polluting of the environments. He at one time and for a few years believed the supposed evidence from lying scientists that gloabl warming is a fact and that it is caused by human fuel consumption. Since the scientists have been exposed as frauds and liars working the system for research funds and fame, Newt has gone on the record several times and in various nevues to admit he was fooled just like you were at the start. The poisoning of our environment, on the other hand, is very real and Newt has stuck his neck out to address that, only to have deceitful people like you try to anil him with what he said before the refutational evidence came to light. You haven’t changed your spots, liar.

Shills like you seem to think Newt Gingrich was supposed to know the 'globull warming evidence' was false. I take it you're so smart that you have known by scientific evidence right from the start that global warming is not occurring. ... And if you say that, you're a liar. People like you make me sick.

What you're doing is deceit, plain and simple. Newt Gingrich does believe humans need to clean up our polluting of the environments. He at one time and for a few years believed the supposed evidence from lying scientists that gloabl warming is a fact and that it is caused by human fuel consumption.

Since the scientists have been exposed as frauds and liars working the system for research funds and fame, Newt has gone on the record several times and in various nevues to admit he was fooled just like you were at the start.

The poisoning of our environment, on the other hand, is very real and Newt has stuck his neck out to address that, only to have deceitful people like you try to nail him with what he said before the refutational evidence came to light. You haven't changed your spots, liar.

I’m guessing that isn’t the official Gingrich supporter response “How was Newt Gingrich supposed to know?”

I can guarantee you that people were attacking Romney in the 2008 election cycle for accepting the notion that there was manmade global warming (and contrary to your implication, you won’t find a SINGLE post by me anywhere on FreeRepublic from ANY time that defends Romney on that belief).

Given that Freepers castigated Rick Perry for not knowing in 1989 that Global Warming was false, and that Gore was going to be the spokesperson for it, I find the argument that we are “liars” for noting what Gingrich said in 2007 to be specious.

The “ManBearPig” South Park episode mocking Gore for his belief in global warming was aired in April of 2006, a year before this debate.

But if you want to argue that Gingrich was simply ignorant at that point, and therefore justified in his proposals, go right ahead. I don’t think that’s going to sell Gingrich with conservatives though.

BTW, I also wouldn’t bother attacking me from the left on environmentalism. I’m the “nut” here at FR who owns not one, but TWO Prius cars, and also traded in my polluting gas mower for a cordless electric back in 1996. And while people here mocked CFLs, I replaced most of my house lights with them long ago.

I’m probably closer to Gingrich than you are on this subject — except I don’t think government should be regulating this, OR giving away tax dollars to “incentivize” us.

I was not aiming anything at you. I was responding to someone who was arbitrarily challenging your honesty and letting both them and you know that I thought that was an unwarranted attack on you, but I'll butt out and let you fight your own battles.

You seemed to share my concern with Greengrich's treacherous green streak and his camellian like nature that camoflages his true intentions to enmesh this country in slavery to affirmative action for fish and plants along with welfare for wildlife at horrific expense to our tenuous economic future.

Please excuse me for my interjection into your conversation. I've taken great care in not pinging the other party to this reply as they appeared to be going over the top on being thin skinned where Greengich's unhealthy tendencies are concerned. It's just that I'm concerned where the Greengich bandwagon will take so many at FR. It's not going to be pleasant, to say the least!!!

You enjoy your freedom while you can for tomorrow America will have a terminal case of GANG-GREEN if we don't nurse it back to health right now!!! Cheers...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.