Posted on 11/16/2008 3:05:24 PM PST by neverdem
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich recently did a global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi that was sponsored by Nobel Laureate Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection (embedded right).
Obviously, he has taken a lot of heat -- no pun intended -- from conservatives for not only staking out a seemingly unconservative position on this controversial issue, but doing so in such a high-profile way with the likes of Pelosi and Gore.
Update: Sheppard responds to his critics at end of post.
With that in mind, Gingrich posted the following explanation [1] at his blog (emphasis added, h/t Terra Rossa [2]):
The Gingrich-Pelosi Climate Change Ad: Why I Took Part
Many of you have written to me to ask why I recently taped an advertisement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for The Alliance for Climate Protection, a group founded by former Vice President Al Gore.
I completely understand why many of you would have questions about this, so I want to take this opportunity to explain my reasons. First of all, I want to be clear: I don't think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don't think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.
But here's what we do know. There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that's a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can't have a slogan of "Just yell no!"
I have a different view. I think it's important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government., more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we're going to get the former. That's why I took part in the ad.
Frankly, I think this makes a lot of sense. After all, if conservatives aren't at this environmental bargaining table, our views will not be represented, and the left likely will be able to ram through any legislative proposals they want.
To prevent this, we've got to be involved, or we shouldn't be surprised with what results come from all this global warming hysteria.
In the end, having a brilliant mind like Gingrich's at that table appears well worth this instance of strange bedfellows.
Yes, that was great! Love it.....
Well said, Ingtar.
A clean environment.
Less-expensive "renewable" energy.
Improving the bottom line through more efficient use.
There is nothing wrong with any of these. As long as you don't try to have too much too soon. That way lies disaster.
I don't have my source materials here, but some of the "green" (i.e. LEED) buildings are horrible energy-wasters, far worse than the median of like buildings in the U.S. Why? Because they optimized for things like "local sources," "re-use," "alternative transportation," and other things that get them LEED ratings -- and yet, through their energy inefficiencies result in MORE CO2 going into the atmosphere, not less. It is this kind of politically-driven silliness that makes me think that "conservative" and "green" should remain apart.
Great, the table has two sides, the “extreme left repeal the industrial revolution and let’s all live in caves” and the “far left - let’s raise the price of energy so high nobody can afford to heat their homes or travel.” This is a classical Hobson’s choice, if you ask me. There are NO conservatives at the table effectively arguing the entire thing is grand hoax designed to have governments grab more control of our everyday lives and enrich government coffers at citizens’ expense.
I thought the earlier reason he had was better: Newt is a limp wristed pansy.
Who supports Bob Barr that is criticizing Newt? From what I saw, he had almost no support here at FR. Shouldn't one be allowed to criticize anyone who promotes this myth? (Gore, Obama, Newt, Schwarzenegger, McCain, etc)
Bob Barr is irrelevant to the discussion, IMO.
*Aren’t scientists who publish false data punished
by their peers?*
The problem they are mostly one in the same.
There are some brave scientists who speak out and write books, but very few.
I have the books,”The Really Inconvenient Truths” by Iain Murray, “Cool It, The Skeptical Evnironmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming” ny Bjorn Lomborg - a young Dane.
and other books exposing this issue.
With the media bent the other way, they don’t get a platform to speak out.
When he first made known that he was up for the job of RNC chairman, i gave it a moment of thought. But I lied down for a minute and got over it.
The “Global warming” hype is a completely unnecessary scam.
We can eliminate any contribution by men to “global warming’ and make clear that world socialistic centralized command government control is utterly unnecessary.
Here is one glaring example. America has been increasing its forestation though programs such as tax-incentivized tree farming and the growing of timber as a commercial crop on a long-term basis since a high point of timber destruction without replacement sometime around the beginning of the last century. By contrast countries that we don’t hold accountable are being allowed to slash and burn for crops. Harrison Ford has done public interest ads to point this out but the left does not want to hear.
Newt’s just another typical “go along to get along” Republican that’s been killing this party.
Journeying through today's political landscape is very akin to walking through a barnyard. Identifying B-—S—T early is a necessity. A handy indicator has always been the party espousing a particular view. In the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult, because of the very poor decisions being made by those claiming to be Conservative.
Developing A healthy sense of skepticism is useful.
The problem is, Newt didn't make the distinction in the ad, from what I've seen. And the distinction will never effectively be made standing shoulder to shoulder with the communist Pelosi. Bad plan, badly executed, and why I wouldn't support Newt as a presidential candidate. Newt talks great, knows his history, is a smart guy, but is unreliable as a conservative leader. This ad merely points that out.
Newt, the only right way to have done this would have been to wait until Nasty was speaking, and then loudly cut the cheese.
Well said. Thanks rock58seg. Son of a share cropper. Wow. You have seen a lot more of this world than I have and I respect your opinion and thoughts. Thanks again.
“Green conservatisism”? Does this couple with his new found “tri-partisanship” and Bush’s “compassionate conservatism”? Screw him.
The ‘94 lovers can live in the past if they wish, this man as he exists today is no friend to conservatism.
Sorry Newt — I’m not buying that “explanation”....
You pimped yourself to the wrong side...
To make it worse - they are demonstrably wrong on the science and their agenda will totally wreck the economy without a chance of accomplishing anything to “save the world”...
Giving the global warming hoax any credence is a mistake. Newt is wrong again.
No, Newt, conservatives think "global warming" is a hoax and this "debate" is bullshit - something with which you must be intimately familiar - and so we refuse to dignify it with a response.
It'd be like arguing theology with a pig.
Newt has overstayed his welcome... Newt is so “over.” Newt, please go away and stop trying to make us all work together Kumbaya style. You let us down once (well, more than once) so just remain in “retirement.”
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.