[JediJones]

http://www.newt.org/answers#GlobalWarming

Global Warming/Cap and Trade

Newt does not believe there is a settled scientific conclusion about whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere.

Newt absolutely opposes “cap and trade” as well as any system of taxing carbon emissions. He testified before Congress against it in 2009 and led a grassroots effort while the Chairman of American Solutions to block its passage in the House and Senate.

Newt believes that cap and trade would kill hundreds of thousands of American jobs, cause electricity and fuel prices to skyrocket, and make America poorer. In contrast, Gingrich believes the best way to protect the environment is through markets, incentives, and entrepreneurs, who quite often are deploying innovative new technologies.

As for the question of whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere, Newt has noted there is no settled scientific conclusion. Many scientists believe it is the case. Others do not. But this unsettled scientific question has nothing to do with the best approach to protecting our environment, which is always markets, incentives, and entrepreneurs creating better and more efficient products and services.

[RasterMaster]

Nice try, but it doesn’t fly...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2011/12/05/gingrich_was_for_cap-and-trade_268599.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/gingrich-and-cap-and-trade-a-flip-flop/2011/12/04/gIQANXNVVO_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/gingrich-was-for-cap-and-trade-and-lots-of-other-things/2011/12/04/gIQAjCpuTO_blog.html

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/10974/Climate-Depot-Roundup-on-Newt-Gingrich-Al-Gore-hiding-under-a-Phil-Donahue-wig—Prof-empties-barf-bag-after-watching-Newt—Nancy—Newt-Urges-solution-to-Global-Warming-

Gin-GRINCH was FOR a cap-n-trade plan before he was AGAINST it.

[Ozymandias Ghost]

“As for the question of whether industrial development has dramatically contributed to a warming of the atmosphere, Newt has noted there is no settled scientific conclusion.”
______________

Good Post JJ!

I think it is easy to get caught up in politics of AGW and conclude that, because the proponents of that argument have been pushing a fraudulent argument w/manufactured “conclusions,” there is no merit at all to the argument that some climatic effects are related to changes man has made in the environment.

That may be an erroneous conclusion. For instance, there does seem to be evidence that “heat islands” are created in or near large cities which can affect the “micro-climate” in their vicinity. Whether that is of significant importance to cause the need for large scale banning of so called “greenhouse gases” is, of course, dubious at best. Never-the-less, the impact of these heat islands does deserve further study to see if some remedial action might be necessary.

Newt's stand on the environment seems to me to be one of legitimate intellectual concern and should be thought of as such. The “spamming” of the picture of Newt w/Nancy Pelosi in an disingenuous attempt to imply that Newt agrees w/her is a “cheap shot” and not worthy of those who profess to be the highly principled supporters of former Senator Santorum.

Take care,

-Geoff