What is Cons' reaction to Gingrich acknowledging Global Warming?

Question

Gingrich, in a debate with Kerry the other day, fully and clearly stated that global warming exists and acknowledged that we need to do something about it.

"Former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry debated former House Speaker (and potential Republican presidential candidate) Newt Gingrich today on the issue of global warming. Perhaps surprisingly, there weren’t nearly as many differences between the men as you might expect. Gingrich praised Kerry’s book on the subject, while Kerry described Gingrich as a generally swell guy.

More interestingly, both agreed that global warming was a problem, likely caused by human activities, in need of urgent action. Gingrich even disagreed with fellow Republican James Inhofe that the concept of global warming is a “hoax” and spoke of a need for a “green conservatism”.

They mainly disagreed about what to do next.."

http://blogs.wsj.com/energy/2007/04/10/gingrich-v-kerry-on-global-warming/

Is Newt a global-warming alarmist?

brad: But Newt evidently concurs with Gore that there is a significant man-made element, so why is the whole debate (for many cons) all about Gore?

Arwen: Can't say this for Bush, but no one has accused Gingrich of being an idiot. Has it entered your mind that he has come to this position based on, well, the facts? I don't think he is doing it to appeal to his base.

justthefacts: The position you stated is not consistent with Gingrich. He does acknowledge that there is a human component to the problem. As for "admiring" him, can't go that far, but at least he isn't totally disconnected from reality like the current occupant of the Oval.

Steddy: what makes you think that I think that this is the first time that the different parties agree on an issue? Fact is,many conservatives on this site absolutely deny that global warming exists and/or that humans are contributing. So I used Gingrich to make a point. So?

So this maybe is the beginning of a consensus on this issue so we can actually get something done

msi-cord: I completely agree with your answer. You framed the debate that should be happening instead of the endless cycle of a bunch of non-scientific people trying to be scientists.

rmagedon: You are a lying stooge. The link I posted, dolt, is from the Wall Street Journal. What is the point of posting a totally discredited article from 1998, ridiculous moron? You are only abasing yourself by attempting to debate me, mug.

To further add to the ignominy and abject humiliation of "rmagedon" here is Gingrich saying what the doltish slave says he didn't say:

" Gingrich, who may seek the GOP presidential nomination, no doubt angered some conservative members of Congress who believe that global warming is a hoax. "The evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere," he said. "And to do it urgently." "

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704100746apr11,1,5460132.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Checkmate, Mug.

Sweetseve: I don't know about the scientists you refer to, but what in thw world makes you think that the global warming denying scientists AREN'T politically motivated (you readily seem to think that scientists who believe in global warming are)? Much of the global warming denying "science" is funded by Big Oil.

I'm sticking with Stephen Hawking, who does believe that gw is a huge problem.

Answer 1

Everyone has an opinion, you don't have to be Republican or a Democrat to have to the right one......but I do....it's a myth!

Answer 2

Well, since the vast majority of the scientific community believe that global warming is occurring and that one of its likely causes is human activity, there is nothing wrong with Newt Gingrich, a conservative, acknowledging global warming. I am sure you paid attention and saw that these two men, though vastly different politically, were in almost total agreement about global warming. Their only main point of difference was the best way to change human activity to lessen its impact. Gingrich believes that we should encourage the development and use of alternative energy through the free market, which means give people and businesses tax breaks or subsidies to work on, develop, implement, or use alternative energy. Senator Kerry believes that we should use government regulation and bureaucracy to force businesses and people to accept alternative energy.

Really the discussion between Kerry and Gingrich is the one we should be having right now and not the debate over whether global warming exists or not.

Answer 3

Celticexpress, you are a rock star!

I did read about the Gingrich statements and just about fell out of my chair. You reflected his statements truly and accurately, ascribing nothing, simply providing the facts of his statement and appearance with Kerry.

Excellent toe-to-toe engagement with the astonishing number of people replying who appear to simply deny either that Gingrich said this or that Gingrich is a conservative. Not to mention those who STILL cling to the notion that there's any significant debate that global warming is largely human-fueled - Gingrich said he gets that now, so why is anyone here saying he's acknowledging merely the change in temperature?

You asked your question and stayed committed. You saw who needed to be taken to school and you took them there. You rock, dude!

Answer 4

The problem with global warming is how are we affecting our planet. Most feel that we are, but how we don't know because of a couple of facts:
1, Earth has just recently come out of an ice age, started around 500 AD.
2. Earth has many natural ups and downs throughout its history which are not explained (done during the overall warm and cold periods).
I know that humankind is having an effect on global warming, but is it 1% or 99%? A question no one can really answer.

Answer 5

The NEW con position is that global warming exists, but they will deny the evidence that humans are pushing it along.

When they will have to back-peddle further and face the data/facts of human causation, their heads will explode.

They have tried to politicize international scientific evidence and unfortunately find themselves on the wrong end of the facts in their position.

This will marginalize their parties' credibility for decades to come. If I were them, I'd cut the partisan crap and wake up and smell the coffee.

Otherwise, they'll get beat over the head with this for generations.

Answer 6

I've done a lot of reading on the subject. I really don't care what politicians say about global warming. They're politicians. What do they know?

MANY scientist don't even believe it is possible for green house gases to cause global warming. In FACT they believe that CO2 is being produced by the heat of the world, and not the other way around. Why does the CO2 increase when the world is hotter? Because, the ocean heats up, as days get hotter. And, as the ocean heats up it release CO2. It takes YEARS of hot weather to heat our massive ocean.

Even if CO2 was the cause, people contribute a VERY low amount of CO2. The largest contributers of CO2 are volcanoes and our ocean.

Basically, what scientist say is happening, is our SUN is heating the Earth, not humans, not CO2. When our sun gets hotter, it generates more magnetic energy. This effects our weather patterns.

A large number of scientist came out and said that the 2500 "top scientist" who stated global warming was a problem was a hoax. Many had their name on the list of the 2500 and stated that anyone who did research for the UN on Global warming was put on the list REGARDLESS OF FINDINGS. Many of which came out and said global warming caused by any green house gas was impossible because if Green house gas was responsible then our world would be hottest within our troposphere. And, it's not.

Global warming has become a political issue. To say it doesn't exist has become political suicide. Politicians lie every day. Even if they actually believe what they are saying, being a politician in no way qualifies you as a studied scientist. Why should we EVER trust science that has political sources. Why do we trust the UN at all?

( My response to you)
Much of the global warming proving"science" is funded by Nuclear Power

Politically motivated or not, facts are facts. .
it is a fact that "Sun Spots" coincide with the heat of weather
(The more the hot) it is. It is also a fact that it take a very large amount of time for our ocean to heat and cool. From 1900 to the 1960s there was a very large increase in sun spots. Recently they have been slightly lower, but frequent nevertheless. That 60 years of heating. The hotter water gets the more active it becomes ( try boiling water) The it release gas into the air (CO2 is released when water becomes active). Because of the upward trend was so long it will take a great deal of time for the world to cool once more. But, that has nothing to do with people causing anything. Nor does it have anything to do with CO2. It has to do with the Sun being hot and the Ocean temperature rising. Not with Factories, not with cars, not with me running AC. It is true our ocean is warmer. I'm not sure our globe is. That would cause the melting we see in Al ore's video.

During the Maunder Minimum in the 17th Century there were hardly any sunspots at all. This coincides with a period of cooling known as the Little Ice Age.



I think it's funny that I've quoted the most FACTS about global warming and I down thumbs. Has it ever occurred to anyone, if the world's heating is dangerous and we pick the wrong source to find solutions to, we're just as bad off?

Also, if Al Gore really believes there's a problem, he should try harder to stop the obsessive amount of energy used in his own home. The truth is Our President owns one of the greenest environmentally friendly houses I've ever heard of.

Answer 7

Fuzzy question! Many, if not all, of the "Cons" do not deny that the earth is getting warmer at this moment. They are just saying that NO ONE can prove that mankind is the CAUSE and that the sacrifices necessary to cure the disease MAY be worse than the disease. Comprendo? Newt is my choice for president because he is smarter than all the other candidates put together and he has plenty of political savvy. Since you are so enthusiastic that he acknowledged that there is global warming, I sense that you admire him also! Right?

Answer 8

actually, he exceptionally stated he wasn't going to make an apology for his party's failure to steer, which i stumbled on interesting. i think of he stated some thing like, "i became into incorrect, and we've been incorrect, yet it truly is in simple terms too undesirable," yet i would be wrong. besides, no ought to brag. now we ought to artwork at the same time and verify the thank you to ideal fix the challenge.

Answer 9

Who cares.

The only thing we could do about it, is close the coal fired power plants down and build more nuclear power plants.

But the same idiots who cheer on global warming, are against nuclear power too.

For some reason i don't see us building nuclear power plants all over the globe to replace the coal fired power plants that already exist.

Answer 10

If you could read, which I doubt, you would see that he did not state "that global warming exists and acknowledged that we need to do something about it."

Now of course that makes you a liar. Should we not ask the conservatives what they think about you being a liar?

I don't think any of them would be surprised.

I do have to ask, why do you stoop to lying, there is plenty of good stuff in the truth to support your thinking, just quit being lazy and go find the truth.

Answer 11

Now that Kerry and Gingrich have spoken, the debate is over. I'm dismantling my A.C. tonite. And are you running a blog, or did you ask a question?