Newt calls for “urgent” measures to reduce carbon in the environment
posted at 5:30 pm on April 10, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
We’ve already had one post threadjacked by forlorn conservatives expressing the Sullivanesque depths of their heart-ache over this so I figured I should toss up a post and just let you get it all out.
Most of us thought the debate today with Waffles was going to focus on whether humans are contributing to global warming. Think again.
Gingrich raised some discrepancies among the science that has led to the current data on climate change, but when asked pointedly about science doubters, like Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Gingrich strongly held the case that climate change is a problem.
“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?” Kerry asked.
“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 —”
“And do it urgently, now?” Kerry interrupted.
“Urgently, yes,” Gingrich said.
According to Human Events, he also conceded early on that scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports man-made global warming.
Because it’s Newt, though, even the bitter comes with some sweet:
Gingrich also said that up to now, conservatives have been slow to loathe with environmental policy because, he said, “For most of the last 30 years, the environment has a been a powerful emotional tool for bigger government and higher taxes. And therefore if you’re a conservative, if you hear these arguments, you know what’s coming next.”
Bingo. Here’s six minutes of video from CNN. The “urgency” exchange isn’t in there, but it’s worth a watch for what Gingrich has to say about luring China and India into green development. Hint: it doesn’t involve duets between Al Gore and Jon Bon Jovi. Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
I thought this was one of your famous Gotcha! posts. I clicked in thinking “no way he can fool me with that.”
see-dubya on April 10, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Come on Newt! First you cozy up to the Seahag and now you buy into the Gorebal warming religion. What’s next? Sucking up to the UN and France?
91Veteran on April 10, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Newt has lost his mind!
WildBill on April 10, 2007 at 5:40 PM
What will James Dobson say????
see-dubya on April 10, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Puke
Jaibones on April 10, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Meh, at least he didn’t say Jesus wants us to reduce carbon. Or maybe he did, I didn’t actually watch the clip.
Enrique on April 10, 2007 at 5:47 PM
“Global warming” is a theory based in politics, not science. It is the greatest threat to individual liberties and private property ownership in history. Politicians who control energy use will also control what individuals eat, where they work and live, and where and if they travel.
Labamigo on April 10, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Is he competing with McCain to alienate the base?
Valiant on April 10, 2007 at 5:52 PM
And what might these measures be?
-’urgent’ as in radical or ‘urgent’ as in, do something (anything) now that kinda makes it look like we’re doing something relevant.
Opinionnation on April 10, 2007 at 5:54 PM
And my respect and chance of my vote. Screw you Newt. You’re an extremely smart man and should know better than this and you’re clearly pandering to voters who’ve been lied to about global warming for so long. Fred Thompson, what say you?
RightWinged on April 10, 2007 at 5:55 PM
RINO’S just keep making it impossable for GOP to EVER be in charge again.
davy on April 10, 2007 at 5:56 PM
I think most of us on the right are interested in this topic primarily because of the fear that the left is using this issue and issues like it to work towards global taxes, higher taxes, increased government control over our lives and just plain socialism in general. I might be thinking optimistically here but perhaps this is a strategy to expose that. John Kerry (an obvious internationalist and socialist) had a very viceral reaction to the simple assertion that carbon emmissions could be reduced without the “help” of taxes being raised and behavior being govt controlled, etc. This could be a strategy to put our side on the side of popular advantage. The majority of American voters are against taxes being raised and are against more govt control over our lives and our property no matter what the reasons because we have learned what really seperates us from the rest of the world economically and productively. Its really no secret that the greatest and widest distribution of wealth is in this country and that’s why so many people want to immigrate here. That is why the left needs to sneak their ideas through on the backs of other issues like environmentalism, etc. If we reduce their ability to do that by shifting the debate slightly then perhaps, in the end, we righties get exactly what we want.
Zetterson on April 10, 2007 at 6:02 PM
How much carbon in a Taliban?
crosspatch on April 10, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Global warming is real … so is global cooling. The earth naturally goes through cycles and is affected by a variety of factors, one of the biggest being the sun.
What all the global warming alarmists fail to tell anyone is that nothing man can do will have any impact on whatever cycle the earth’s going through. There’s been no evidence to date that has given any indication that CO2 has anything to do with the slight rise in the global temperature. The alarmists have suceeded in playing up CO2 as the villian probably because it’s the simplest villian for the average layman to understand … and believe.
darwin on April 10, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Notwithstanding the lie that is the consensus argument, when has science ever been decided by consensus? Were Newton’s Laws of Motion put into effect by consensus?
It’s just a weak-ass attempt to shut off debate by invoking authority. And Newt fell for it.
thirteen28 on April 10, 2007 at 6:05 PM
This is a very sad day for me as a conservative that I looked up to has fallen under the influence of the Gorebot.
dawgyear on April 10, 2007 at 6:10 PM
I can’t believe some people are calling Newt Gingrich a RINO; are you serious?
Nonfactor on April 10, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Newt is a very smart guy. Maybe he’s right.
mikeyboss on April 10, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Is Newt running for some office somewhere?
huckleberry on April 10, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Nail on the head. I don’t deny that global warming exists - it probably does. Just whose fault is it, now that’s the million dollar question. Liberals will have you believe that the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the United States - never mind that China and India are much bigger polluters and threats to the environment. But somehow, to the pea-sized liberal brain, they get a pass. Why? I have absolutely no idea. I have no problem making an attempt to change my lifestyle - as long as everyone does, and that includes all these elite, snobbish liberals with that oh so condescending attitude that makes me pull my hair out. And raise taxes to do so??? puh-leeze. to a lib, raising taxes is the one and only solution. kind of makes me sick that all those who “think green” are the ones who make so much money that it really doesn’t matter if they throw it down a toilet on carbon offsets and other ponzi schemes. It doesn’t affect their bottom line at all. Yet, for me and for most other Americans, it does matter if I pay 35% more on my power bill, or whatever, just so some elitist liberal snob from Washington or Vermont or any other blue state can feel better about themselves.
ugh.
pullingmyhairout on April 10, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Well, I hope this doesn’t double post but I just hit submit comment and it didn’t go through so I’ll try again.
Perhaps this is just plain smart? We can argue until both sides are blue in the face about the science of GW and it will really get us nowhere. I think most right wingers are primarily concerned that the left is using this issue to implement a form of global tax, raise federal and state taxes, increase govt control over our behaviors and properties and generally work towards their socialized agendas. Perhaps Newt is just taking away their ability to use environmentalism to forward their socialist agenda? If we can shift debate away from the science behind GW and into the area where the Republicans have the advantage. Most voters do not want their taxes raised. Most voters do not want socialism. Most voters do not like risking national sovereinty. Most voters understand the reason why the US has been able to generate the greatest wealth and the largest distribution of wealth the world has ever seen. They understand what really seperates us economically and productively from the rest of the world. That is why so many people want to come here from other countries. That is also why the Dems need to hijack issues like environmentalism in order to push through their socialist ideas on the people. Perhaps Newt is trying to expose this side of the Democrat agenda? John Kerry (an obvious internationalist and socialist) was not happy to hear that Carbon emmissions could be reduced without the “help” of higher taxes and without the help of greater government control over our behavior and our wallets. Perhaps by shifting the debate away from the science and into this area we will have the best chance to get what it is we want and what we know is best?
Zetterson on April 10, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Yup looks like its going to post twice. Sorry guys.
Zetterson on April 10, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Zetterson, perhaps you’re right. I hope you’re right.
Buzzy on April 10, 2007 at 6:32 PM
No way I’m voting for him if he runs.
Run Fred! Run
Darksean on April 10, 2007 at 6:33 PM
What do you expect when the EPA is putting out stuff like this:
Rick on April 10, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Did someone call Newt a RINO? You can’t be serious.
Honestly, you’re left with the possibility that he either really believes this - a sin in most of your eyes (but I fail to see how it’s against the base) - or he doesn’t and he’s a liar and a panderer.
What say y’all? And which sould you prefer?
SouthernDem on April 10, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Why is anyone suprised, did you expect Newt to not be a politician?
When all of the facts point towards carbon having no (as in nein, nada, zilch) effect on the climate the only people who support this lie are the ones who have something to gain.
Rode Werk on April 10, 2007 at 6:39 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
I’ve said my piece. There is no “perfect” temperature on planet earth. When was this molten ball of metal zooming through the galaxy at god knows what speed ever at equilibrium. Never has been, never will.
Mars, Jupiter and some its moons are all warming right now. Scientific debate over. My ass it is. Debate suppressed is more like it.
lorien1973 on April 10, 2007 at 6:41 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
I’ve said my piece. There is no “perfect” temperature on planet earth. When was this molten ball of metal zooming through the galaxy at god knows what speed ever at equilibrium. Never has been, never will.
Mars, Jupiter and some its moons are all warming right now. Scientific debate over. My ass it is. Debate suppressed is more like it.
lorien1973 on April 10, 2007 at 6:41 PM
So, you are saying that the only reason conservatives care about data suppression and manipulation, poorly designed models, the UN changing climate history - is that our taxes might go up. I thought -truth- was somewhere in there too.
lorien1973 on April 10, 2007 at 6:43 PM
I never recall there being any sort of debate about global warming. Seems to me the terms of the debate is limited to the enviromentalist movement shouting out relative “truths” while ignoring any facts to the contrary, and calling anyone who disagrees with them a corporate-nazi shill for oil companies.
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on April 10, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Sounds like some of you might love this.
Jaibones on April 10, 2007 at 6:47 PM
I was hoping you would do this AP. I saw it somewhere else earlier, but don’t have posting (Venting) priveleges there.
Well, I wasn’t really enthusiastic about Newt’s electibility before, although I greatly respected his knowledge of history, general conservative principles and good communication skills.
OK, maybe you guys that think that this was ’strategery’ on Newt’s part are right… (The video wouldn’t play for me, I guess the CNN server is overloaded)… But still, by taking the stand that he appears to be taking, he adds a certain amount of credibility to the Imminent Global Warming disaster meme. And that was foolish. He should know better, by now, that anything he says will be spun by the media to their benefit.
This is STRIKE 2 for Newt. IF he goes wobbly on the illegal alien invasion problem, or anything else significantly important to me, he will join that one other fellow on my ‘will NOT vote for no matter what list’.
LegendHasIt on April 10, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Goodbye Newt.
Suggestions to solutions on actual issues I can compromise on, but if you can’t even distinguish an issue from a Ponzi scheme, I don’t need you anywhere near the White House.
Misha I on April 10, 2007 at 6:48 PM
This is better :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
Nice.
lorien1973 on April 10, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Newt was for global warming before he was against it. Kudos to John Kerry for pointing this out.
aengus on April 10, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Great article in your most recent post Lorien. Thank You
LegendHasIt on April 10, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Thanks for linking that.
This is a perfect illustration of the methods used to “prove” the theory of “man-made” global warming - if the data doesn’t fit the theory, they throw out the data instead of the theory, and continue to call it science.
No wonder these frauds want to shut off the debate with their “consensus” BS.
thirteen28 on April 10, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Gore you magnificent bastard……?
omnipotent on April 10, 2007 at 7:23 PM
I think this is part of plan to paint the Dems into a corner, especially regarding China and India, and ween us off of foriegn oil. I wouldn’t count Newt out yet, let’s see what he has to say over the next two years.
PinkyBigglesworth on April 10, 2007 at 7:33 PM
When I read the local paper, it show that the temperature always seems to drop at night, and raising during the day time.
Could it be that the sun may have an influence on the warming and cooling of the earth or maybe even Mars?
mattma on April 10, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Other than the ‘urgently’ part I agree with him. Nobody denies the earth is warming and the evidence is there humans do contribute, to what degree is where I’m still the skeptic, but hey less polution is always good. He nailed it on the “we know what’s coming next” bit too, that’s spot on.
Dash on April 10, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Newt isn’t who you think he is. This guy said it was inexcusable to sift through phone records to find terrorist cells.
There was a reason for when Newt finally came out of seclusion he was hand-in-hand with Hillary Clinton. They have spent so much time together in the last several years that they “finish each others sentences”, according to a NYT article a couple of years ago.
What Newt really wants is a cabinet position inside a new Clinton administration
Perchant on April 10, 2007 at 7:45 PM
… the lack of Anna Nicole baby-daddy blogging?
Ali-Bubba on April 10, 2007 at 7:46 PM
That’s it. No work, no money and no vote for Newt.
MCPO Airdale on April 10, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, Im gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust
TheBigOldDog on April 10, 2007 at 7:48 PM
Newt is right.
tommy1 on April 10, 2007 at 7:51 PM
What I can’t understand about global warming skeptics is that they argue that the evidence isn’t entirely conclusive, but then they conclude themselves that there is no problem. It is a serious issue, but lets just throw caution to the wind and hope for the best.
tommy1 on April 10, 2007 at 7:54 PM
It’s absurd and disappointing. There are activists and researchers who have devoted years to debunking the global-warming hype, and Newt just concedes game, set and match to Kerry.
The fact that liberals devoutly believe something to be true should always be considered strong evidence that something is false. The mere fact that liberals are so fervent in their global warming belief is, to me, conclusive proof that it’s all B.S.
Ali-Bubba on April 10, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Newt’s a squish on gun rights, too.
juliesa on April 10, 2007 at 7:56 PM
You know this freaky cold snap we are having in the midwest is not going to help the Global Gasbags one bit. I was kind of depressed about the weather until I thought it through. Ha Ha…brrr!
kahall on April 10, 2007 at 8:01 PM
You are correct of course. Newt believes this, it is not the first time that people disagree. He believes it and most of us do not. No other motive is needed than just being wrong…either he and others are wrong, or most of us are wrong. The problem is by the time we figure who is wrong, the enviormental debate will have shifted to another panic cause, then another…I just don’t support people who make their living crying wolf. I don’t think Newt is crying wolf, he just is wrong.
right2bright on April 10, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Honestly, guys, when someone you respect as intelligent tells you something you wouldn’t like to hear, doesn’t it make more sense to consider that he may be right, rather than conclude he’s stupid or lying so you can keep your previous opinion intact?
mikeyboss on April 10, 2007 at 8:04 PM
Well supposing he’s right his proposed solutions are a lot better than any others I’ve heard. He’s not using it as an excuse to cripple the world economy but undertands that with minor tweaking the free market can correct itself.
aengus on April 10, 2007 at 8:11 PM
When someone, especially a politician, that is NOT an expert in the field tells me something that is completely at odds with my personal experiences and what other people whom I respect that ARE experts in the field say, then, yeah, I have a problem with them and will lose my previous respect for them.
Especially when what they say can cause untold damage to the general economy for no real benefit to society.
When Newt goes back to school and gets his Doctorate in physics or meteorology and spends a couple of decades doing global research, He might convince me that I’m wrong.
Until that happens, I have a better background in science than he does, and will go with my own analysis. I’ll defer to him on history and a few other things where he is acknowledged to be more experienced than I. But not this.
LegendHasIt on April 10, 2007 at 8:22 PM
No. And if he decided to jump off a bridge, would you too?
db on April 10, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Say it ain’t so Newt…say it ain’t so.
Spassvogel on April 10, 2007 at 8:37 PM
What’s up with all of these guys having a political death wish? I’m not talking about Fred! or Mitt, but Newt with this, McCain with immigration amnesty, Rudy constantly bringing up life issues in the primary season. I always thought that the old saw for Republicans was “Run to the right in the primary then come back to the middle for the general election.”
He’s out of his element here. He’s a politician, not a scientist. If Newt told me that US Grant wore a dress at Vicksburg, I’d believe him because he’s a heckuva historian. But I would hesitate to accept this especially since he presents no evidence. Worse yet, this is really just political capitulation masquerading as science.
cmay on April 10, 2007 at 8:42 PM
I told you guys 6 months ago Newt was a Globalist and I was attacked for it saying I was a conspiracy theorist.
Newt is a member of the CFR and supports their policies. One of which is the support of a Global Energy Tax of $1.00 a gallon for gasoline. Those of you that do not what the means, he supports a one world government.
Two other candidates that are CFR members Giuliani and Romney. Why do you think the RNC has packed the candidates with GWB clones that are one world order RHINO’s.
Ton Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson are not members of the CFR.
I am going to support one of those four or all of the above.
Right now my money is on Fred with one of the other candidates for VP.
ScottyDog on April 10, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Come on. That’s as bad as the NAU tinfoil hat conspiracies.
lorien1973 on April 10, 2007 at 8:43 PM
If that is the case, Newt, being a smart man, should be able to use a scientific argument to expose their agenda…and not join in the lunacy.
Below is an excerpt from an email the Silky Pony campaign just sent out (The block quotes are mine.)
91Veteran on April 10, 2007 at 8:46 PM
The women wouldn’t have to use them for this to be effective, just set the punishment for rape to be to have to put one of these on.
pedestrian on April 10, 2007 at 8:48 PM
sorry, posted to wrong thread.
pedestrian on April 10, 2007 at 8:48 PM
I said in a previous thread that I’d follow Giuliani into a burning building, so …
Seriously, Newt also has access to experts in the field, as do many of us on both sides of the issue. I don’t know the answer. I have a left-of-center buddy with graduate degrees in environmental science and aerospace engineering. He also acknowledges he doesn’t know the answer.
I’m not suggesting taking Newt’s word as gospel. But when someone I respect says something that surprises me, my inclination is to take a closer look, rather than dismiss it.
mikeyboss on April 10, 2007 at 8:55 PM
I would rather take the word of Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or Bill Gray, who has been studying climatology for over 40 years than that of hucksters…or politicians.
91Veteran on April 10, 2007 at 9:07 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Fred! is a member. Not sure about the others.
db on April 10, 2007 at 9:10 PM
Gee that what they said the last time I said that he was a CFR member. Looks like I was right about his views.
BTW-The NAU is not a conspiracy.Henry Lamb has a great presentation laying out the facts.
Henry Lamb is the Executive Vice President of the Environmental Conservation Organization, and Chairman of Sovereignty International, Inc. In addition, he writes numerous articles for worldnetdaily.com
ScottyDog on April 10, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Thanks for the link. I read the article, and hope Dr. Lindzen is correct. Thing is, other well-credentialed scientists in the field seem to come to the opposite conclusion.
It’s a philosophical problem I often face: people more expert than I have opposite opinions on an issue. How can I arrive at a reasonable conclusion myself without spending the rest of my life studying?
That’s a rhetorical question. I think most of us factor in many other variables, including what we’d like to believe, as well as the need for urgent action.
mikeyboss on April 10, 2007 at 9:31 PM
I keep hearing this argument, but who exactly are the “well-credentialed scientists” supporting man-made global warming?
db on April 10, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Don’t worry about Newt. He’s forgotten more stuff than most have ever remembered.
Have Rush debate Kerry on Gorebal warming.
Mojave Mark on April 10, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Follow the money. It really is that simple. The left constantly slimes anyone who disagrees with the great consensus about global warming as being a tool of the oil companies, etc. Look who funds the people who are in favor of global warming being man made.
Simpler example. Imagine you were a liberal on this site. How long do you think your opinions would last, or you for that matter? The scientific community is invested, both figuratively and literally, in global warming. If you disagree you are a heretic. And what does going along cost you? Nada. What does disagreeing cost you? Just possibly your career.
If you would prefer links knocking down every damn thing Gore preaches that can be arranged, too.
JackStraw on April 10, 2007 at 9:50 PM
What he said was absolutely correct. There is certainly a consensus that we are contributing to it. There is no question that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will affect the climate, one way or the other. The questions are how significant is our contribution and is climate change bad or avoidable even if it is? There is no evidence of any consensus on those questions.
Everything Newt proposed could just as easily have been part of a plan to reduce our dependency on foreign and often hostile nations for our energy needs. He didn’t bow down and worship Gaia, so chill out and quit embarrasing yourselves.
DaveS on April 10, 2007 at 10:00 PM
How about one link that debunks most of what is in Gore’s little movie — with citations! Starts on page 7:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070226_monckton.pdf
db on April 10, 2007 at 10:02 PM
This is getting really old…
consensus != science
db on April 10, 2007 at 10:09 PM
91Veteran:
Richard Lindzen, and any other reputable scientist, would know full well that what Newt said is true: anthropogenic emissions are contributing to climate change. In the article you linked, Lindzen even discusses the anticipated effects due to a doubling of CO2.
It is simply not a question that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of energy that are reflected from the surface of the earth. You must come to terms with the basic physics of this to avoid making us all look dumb.
Skip to the actual legitimate questions… how much have we contributed (it may be negligible after all of the feedbacks)? Will it be bad? Can we stop it? Those are all things about which there is a lot of disagreement.
DaveS on April 10, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Let me rephrase that… anyone who knows ANYTHING about the underlying science knows that we are certainly affecting the climate. Consensus isn’t science, but spectroscopy and absorption spectra are science, and it is simply irrefutable fact that CO2 will absorb particular wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation that passes through the atmosphere, which is converted, ultimately, to heat.
You know, it IS possible to be a small-government conservative who is opposed to this global environmentalist power-grab without painting the entire right as uneducated baffoons. I recommend reading Richard Lindzen’s article, linked above.
DaveS on April 10, 2007 at 10:16 PM
First things first.
If I want a history lesson, Newt’s the man. If I want science, I think I’ll go to a real scientist.
So now that we know that there is in fact absolutely not a consensus at the highest levels of science that humans are contributing in any meaningful way to climate change, on to the rest.
Why exactly should we attempt to spend a nickel trying to fix a problem we don’t even know is a problem, or even exists? I have no problem with fighting pollution. I rely on the outdoors as much as anyone and seeing the destructive force of pollution on the oceans, the air, etc. is obvious and unrefuted.
Before I’m onboard with spending anything on climate change I want to see that humans actually cause it and proposed solutions will have an affect. Why is that a radical request?
JackStraw on April 10, 2007 at 10:19 PM
I didn’t say it was “in a meaningful way”. I just said people sound like idiots when they get on Newt for saying that there is consensus that we are contributing.
There is absolutely ZERO question that we are contributing. But the “question of human attribution” (i.e., “how much”) laregly can’t be solved. Like I said, Lindzen is a good source.
DaveS on April 10, 2007 at 10:25 PM
No, I recommend you read it. I mean really read it. Don’t just cherry pick pieces of it in a feeble attempt to prove your preconceived notions.
You said
In that part of the article he was pointing out that modelers were unable to account for their conclusions. It was a hypothetical example.
Here are some other things he says in the article
db on April 10, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Dude, you’re arguing with a strawman. There is a tendency, especially on this particular blog over the last few months, to just start arguing with walls. I never said it was a problem, and, in fact, made it quite clear that the extent of human contributions or the extent to which it is a problem were legitimate questions about which there is a lot of debate.
What there is NO debate about, though, is the fact that CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation as it passes through the atmosphere. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA… (a little “Rush” lingo there, folks), and the fact that CO2 has increased significantly since 1940.
What is not clear is the extent to which various feedbacks offset some of the warming from our own emissions–more plants, grow, for example then absorb more CO2–or the extent to which the sun and other natural forcings are responsible.
DaveS on April 10, 2007 at 10:31 PM
No, there is no point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic. But there is also no point in pretending that CO2 doesn’t do what CO2 does.
Lindzen has pointed out MANY times that there will eventually be saturation of those spectral bands and the forcing due to CO2 will decrease as CO2 increases. Lindzen is not an idiot… he doesn’t believe that CO2 has NO effect on anything.
If you guys would engage in a little less religious zealotry and actually read what I type, you might realize that I pretty much agree with you… I just don’t feel the need to run around yelling that 2+2=3 in order to make the argument.
This all started because you guys were calling Newt Gingrich names for basically stating a very simple, scientific fact.
DaveS on April 10, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Politics as usual.
Before meeting, put on pandering brain cap, wait five minutes, fix hair, play for cameras. Does this
headsuit make me look fat?Shoots!
Kini on April 10, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Come on folks, Newt didn’t really have a chance at running for POTUS anyway and we would have lost a great public speaker on all things conservative (except for this one). Heck even W is out selling the green thing now. Green is the new sexy. Liberals are always going to whine about our climate and never be able to prove their theories - which are always based on tenuous science. Anyone remember global cooling?
thedecider on April 10, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Thank you. End of discussion. If there is no problem, then it is way beyond a waste of time to look for solutions.
Good day sir!
db on April 10, 2007 at 10:40 PM
db, you are like a caricature of an internet partisan with his fingers in his ears. Even after I pointed it out, you are **STILL** arguing with a strawman.
It should also be noted that, while it is far from certain that warming is largely due to anthropogenic emissions or will be catastrophic, it is also far from certain that it isn’t or won’t be.
In any case, I have no problem whatsoever with the sorts of free-market ideas that Newt was pushing, because it is exactly the sort of thing that will rid us of the foreign oil dependency and put us in charge of the new energy economy.
DaveS on April 10, 2007 at 10:44 PM
What there is NO debate about, though, is the fact that CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation as it passes through the atmosphere. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA… (a little “Rush” lingo there, folks), and the fact that CO2 has increased significantly since 1940.
And there is zero, zilch, nada, data that suggests that increased CO2 is 1) primarily man made or 2) a net bad thing. CO2 levels have risen and fallen throughout the history of the planet, with and without man. Take a look at the Vostok graph. What causes CO2 to spike 300,000 years ago? Flinstone SUV’s? There is a theory, and that’s all it is, that humans have caused CO2 levels to be higher than they have been before. There is no scientific proof. Consensus means dick. That’s not science.
Better yet, tell me why Newt didn’t state the very simple scientific fact that CO2 is one of the building blocks for growth of plant life and crops? How does Newt, or anyone else know, that an increase in CO2 isn’t a net beneficial thing? We do have a hunger problem on the planet, maybe an increase in CO2 is just what the doctor ordered. In any case, it might not be worse than the global cooling crisis of the 70’s. Remember that? A lot of consensus around that one, too.
I say again, I am not in favor of doing anything until we know what really is the cause of global climate change and if it is a net positive or negative. Newt would do better to lend his prestige to facts.
JackStraw on April 10, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Well said. Dittos, if you’ll pardon the expression.
If you like Lindzen listen to him. Get on to the real questions and lets keep our place as the grown ups here. How much are we contributing? What’s the real causes? Are we already taking the right steps? How about China and India?
If it makes anyone feel better, feel free to rail against Kyoto, that’s a bunch of garbage.
Dash on April 10, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Between 1980 and 1992, three of the largest volcanic eruptions in global history occured. The SMALLEST of the three, Mt. St. Helens, was estimated to have spewed pollution equivalent to the amount that would be produced by every car in California running nonstop for 15 YEARS. This pollution was introduced into the atmosphere over a 6 hour period. The eruptive force was considered equal to 25,000 Hiroshima bombs.
Again, that was the baby of the three. Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines produced a full-force eruption in excess of 9 hours, compared to St. Helens brief blast followed by extended smoke release. Pinatubo’s dense plume of smoke release lasted more than two days, enough to cover the entire island of Luzon with more than 9 inches of volcanic ash, which sadly became volcanic concrete due to the bad timing of a monsoon.
The “other” volcano, Mt. Spurr, about 80 miles NW of Anchorage AL, fell somewhere in between the two on the scale of pollution emission.
Net effect on global climate? Not enough for anyone to be including them in the calculations. Those eruptions have been forgotten, and yet have been the most significant, catastrophic pollution events of the last 90 years.
This alone tells me that the “science” behind the global warming alarmism is bogus. Hundreds of facts are ignored, skewed, mistated, or reversed, whatever supports the conclusions that are demanded. The exact opposite of science.
As for America’s future energy dependence, there are only two appropriate actions to take in the near term.
1. Start taking the oil in ANWR as quickly as possible.
2. Build about 45 more nuclear power plants, 6 of them in California. Energy prices fall, energy infrastructure costs fall, everybody gets a little bit happier but the socialists.
Freelancer on April 10, 2007 at 11:00 PM
1) Yes there is… ratios of carbon-12 and carbon-13 in the atmosphere are changing, and are becoming more inline with the ratios found in CO2 emitted from combustion of fossil fuels.
2) I never said it was a bad thing… that’s the strawman… YET AGAIN. I also never said that they were higher than ever before. I said that there are basic laws of physics at work here that are beyond doubt. All that other crap you keep trying to argue with me about it speculative nonsense.
Actually, there wasn’t so much consensus. The “catastrophy consensus” back then was also largely fabricated by the media… even Lindzen said as much in the Intelligence-Squared debate.
Because everyone already knows that.
DaveS on April 10, 2007 at 11:02 PM
The problem I see here is that Newt is getting into this debate a little late. Gorebal warming true believers have been at it for some time and are well-entrenched. I believe one of their intentions is to institute some sort of global tax to “offset” carbon emissions.
Newt coming along at this point in time with his free-market suggestions might be fine, but at this point in the debate, it appears to many to be little more than pandering or weak.
He may have good ideas in this area, but he will have to work hard to bring the current true believers to his side. He is going up against people who have vested interests in GW being a problem.
How many people truly believe the hype that Edwards sent in his recent campaign solicitation? They will not be easily won over.
91Veteran on April 10, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Well, if he can basically push an agenda for a “neoconservative” realignment of global politics in which the US is the head of whatever replaces OPEC and is thriving economically while Europe languishes in old-age, dying of Kyoto-induced bankruptcy… who cares what the morons think?
And, for what its worth, the US isn’t as far gone as you imply. Almost half (47%) have “no concern” about it, and 37% have “some”. When a real debate gets fired up minds can change.
That was from last year… I saw a recent one, though, that wasn’t much worse. It has gotten a bit worse, though, since Gore’s propagandist masterpiece.
DaveS on April 10, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Here is the key statement creating the furor over Newt’s apparent stupidity today:
THAT is what has so many conservatives upset about it.
Not debating the fine points of the CO2 absorbtion of radiation spectra. Not that he was alluding to using free market solutions to a possible slight warming trend. Not that we should quit relying on the rest of the world for most of our energy needs.
He agreed with Kerry (and Gore) that it is an urgent problem. So, given the way people think these days, 95% of the people that hear anything about this debate at all are going to come away with the message that Newt believes that ‘global warming is an urgent problem.
He blithely played right into the Left’s agenda with that, and any finer points he might have intended to make will never be heard or understood by the rest of the world’s people (that if they get any news at all), it consists of ten second soundbites by a leftwing media that just loves disasters, real or imagined.
LegendHasIt on April 11, 2007 at 12:21 AM
I thought so too, but now I shed a single tear.
- The Cat
MirCat on April 11, 2007 at 12:39 AM
I did not see the entire debate but I did read the article. IMHO, a lot of us are having a knee-jerk reaction to to the fact that Newt agreed with Kerry.
This is a minor admission in which the science for or against can neither be proven or disproven. A conservative always errs on the side of prudence.
We should take steps urgently. “Steps” doesn’t mean 100% compliance tomorrow.
Now lets put “steps” into context.
I don’t think any conservative would argue that we have an unlimited supply of oil. Ergo, we eventually must move towards alternative fuels. And if we are going to do that, why not fuels that put less pollutants into the air? This is what Newt is advocating, but he is also holding to the conservative ideal of free market.
Which is a truely conservative ideal, pollution or free market solutions to pollution?
Someone above said Newt is taking this issue from the liberals. That is correct, but it is not just lip service. He is saying it needs to be addressed but it needs to be done with a conservative mindset.
A sidebar to this is that Newt is telling us all where we should be investing some of our disposable income. As soon as the conservatives get onboard with this, the market will open up.
csdeven on April 11, 2007 at 8:16 AM
Let’s all just vote for John Kerry. At least he admits he’s a moron, or rather, proves it everytime he opens his mouth. Newt’s the idea guy. His current idea? Hey, we’ll agree with the liberals… that’ll confuse the he11 out of them!!
Griz on April 11, 2007 at 8:24 AM
Newt, goodnight and goodbye
Fritz on April 11, 2007 at 8:29 AM
Will the last global warming Luddite turn out the lights? The energy saving ones.
honora on April 11, 2007 at 8:33 AM
For those that missed the live program, c-span has the entire 2 hour video here (RealPlayer):
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/energy/energy041007_nyu.rm
db on April 11, 2007 at 8:40 AM
GOOD BYE NEWT! Turn out the lights on your way back to nothingness!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on April 11, 2007 at 8:43 AM
Global warming. Bah. Utter horse shit. There’s my consensus. It’s the second dumbest thing ever. (With the first being Peyton Manning getting Super Bowl MVP).
The temperature will go up. It will come down. The next ice age will arrive right on schedule. Sooner or later, we’ll have a nuclear war. At some point, a big meteor is going to hit us. And no matter what, in a few billion years the whole planet is going to fall into the sun and melt away.
I repeat: bah. Global warming is really that stupid. It’s so dumb I can’t even debate it any more. It’s just a new religion, and a particularly goofy one. I don’t argue with Scientologists about whether Lord Xenu dropped people into volcanoes 75 million years ago - so why argue with the global warming loons? Same exact thing.
—————-
But Newt brings up something worth discussing and its a simple question: in the current climate of global warming hysteria, can ANY politician get elected without conforming to that silly “consensus?”
I don’t think so. I think that in this day and age, getting tagged with the label “denier” would be as bad as being called a Commie in 1953. Seriously.
And if I’m right, we all ought to be scared. Because that’s just terrifying.
Remind me again, please: who exactly are the fascists? Who exactly ignores science in favor of faith? Cuz I’m getting confused on that point.
Professor Blather on April 11, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »