Global Warming Starts to Divide G.O.P. Contenders

The New York Times ^ | October 17, 2007 | MARC SANTORA

[Eric Blair 2084]

How about Nixon and OSHA. He created more new Gubmint bureaucracies than anyone.

[SuziQ]

Fred D. Thompson, after mocking the threat in April, said more recently that “climate change is real” and suggested a measured approach until more was known about it.

Fred is still mocking the hysteria of the Global Warming folks. His contention is that humans are not the cause of any warming that might be happening, but instead, it's caused by that big old furnace in the sky. If there are any 'preparations' that need to be done it's just to help folks adapt to what nature will do on her own.

Isn't it interesting that in this article about the 'leading Republican candidates' that Fred gets exactly two throw away lines, and these are meant to put a question mark to his credibility on the issue?

[Intolerant in NJ]

. It is a near-unanimous recognition among the leaders of the threat posed by global warming...watched the better part of a most interesting program on the International History channel last night - called the "Little Ice Age" it recounted a period of significantly lower global temperatures which lasted from about 1350 to about 1850, and which resulted in such incidents as the struggle George Washington had in his famous crossing of the Delaware which took nine hours because of the great amount of ice in the river, something not observed now because of the warming temps - but that warming is apparently just a return to more normal, typical temperatures with the waning of the "ice age" - in fact given this return to the norm, it is amazing that global temperatures rose only about .7 of degree in the 1900's (with .5 of the rise occuring during the first half of the century) - anyone not smart or honest enough to call the global warming hoax for what it is should never be prez.......

[Eric Blair 2084]

Obviously the NY Slimes has an agenda.

What has Fred actually said re Global Warning?

[Eric Blair 2084]

The problem is that you are paying attention. But your vote gets canceled out by 7 dumbasses who are clueless.

The political consultants to the GOP candidates are still trying to figure out how to deal with this dilemna.

[TheDon]

Save the environment,
kill an environmentalist.

[Eric Blair 2084]

But what about the trees and the rainforest????

[GregoryFul]

Sounds like a good plan. Any candidate who buys into the man made GW hoax is an idiot.

[Eric Blair 2084]

But we are just the base here who actually pay attention and care...the people who donate money, knock on doors, man the phone banks, post lawn signs, tell our friends, and care about our country enough to be on a political forum at midnight 90 days before a primary.

They don’t care about us. The candidates will spew the PC line to get the independent MSM reading clueless vote that decides elections.

[TheDon]

If you want to save them,
kill an environmentalist.

[Eric Blair 2084]

I like your attitude.

[GregoryFul]

What we know about world wide climate over the years is that it changes - not drastically, but within a few degrees +-. Quite bearable - most living things like a little warmer - more food, less need for heat & shelter in the nether regions. But can adjust and survive the colder episodes. The GW maniacs think that some perfect thermostat regulates the earths global temperature to their hypothetical perfect static temperature, and any variation from same is blamed on human activity, the evil animal.

These nutcases extrapolate a few years of barely perceptible warming into a future furnace in 50 or 100 years, or a few years of cooling into the next ice age. Pure insanity.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

---

NYSlimes...

[freemike]

Is there no issue or principle that Republicans cannot bring themselves to cave on??!!

[SuziQ]

Here is Fred's statement on Energy Security, within which he mentions 'climate change'. Sure doesn't sound like he's drinking the "Human caused Global Warming" kool aid.:

The energy challenges our nation faces today are real and significant. Our dependence on foreign sources of oil threatens our national security and puts our economic prosperity at risk. America must rise to the challenge and take the steps necessary to become more energy independent before this becomes a crisis. No one solution will solve the energy challenges we face; all ideas must be on the table. Greater energy security will enhance our ability to pursue our foreign policy and national security objectives. Increasing our energy independence and investing in alternative energy sources will also produce a healthier environment. And while we don’t know for certain how or why climate change is occurring, it makes sense to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy. Overall, I am committed to:
* A balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources.
* Investing in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment.
* An energy policy that invests in the advanced technologies of tomorrow and places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency.
* Conducting research and development into technologies that improve the environment, especially the reduction of CO2 emissions.

[traviskicks]

not sure if you got the ping on this story:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/rlc/1911983/posts

Q But often the cheapest energy sources, which the market would naturally select for, are also the most environmentally harmful. How would you address this?

A Your question is based on a false premise and a false definition of “market” that is quite understandable under the current legal framework. A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the “cheapest energy sources,” as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.

To the extent property rights are strictly enforced against those who would pollute the land or air of another, the costs of any environmental harm associated with an energy source would be imposed upon the producer of that energy source, and, in so doing, the cheap sources that pollute are not so cheap anymore.

Q What’s your take on global warming? Is it a serious problem and one that’s human-caused?

A I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don’t think there’s a conclusion yet. There’s a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument. If you study the history, we’ve had a lot of climate changes. We’ve had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If there are weather changes, we’re not going to be very good at regulating the weather.

To assume we have to close down everything in this country and in the world because there’s a fear that we’re going to have this global warming and that we’re going to be swallowed up by the oceans, I think that’s extreme. I don’t buy into that. Yet, I think it’s a worthy discussion.

Q So you don’t consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?

A No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus — those are immediate threats. We’re about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that’s going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up.

Q What, if anything, do you think the government should do about global warming?

A They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don’t emit poisons and contribute to it.

[Eric Blair 2084]

not only did I get it, see #12