Fred Thompson, the Global Warming President?

American Writer ^ | 11/12/07 | Alexander J. Madison

[pissant]

Perhaps the biggest fraud ever to be perpetrated onto the American people is Global Warming. Al Gore is just the symptom. If not given cover by a group of supposed climate scientists and other left-wing academics, Mr. Gore would be easily seen as the nutcase, phony alarmist that he is. Alas, nearly the entire left of the political spectrum has bought into this hoax, and more than a few ‘conservatives’ have also succumbed to the hysteria, including Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee.

Fred Thompson, at least since he started campaigning for the GOP nomination, has provided some biting remarks regarding this issue, including pointing out that Mars is experiencing Martian Warming, with nary a human influence (Richard Hoagland’s theories not withstanding).

But what did Fred do and say during his time in the Senate, representing the good folks of Tennessee?

Well for starters, Fred had this to say on April 23, 2002 during the Senate debates on the 2002 Energy bill:

"I would like to thank my colleagues for their statements and indicate my support for the agreement that we have reached with regard to Title X. A lot of hard work has gone into this agreement. It is my belief that there are still many uncertainties with regard to climate change. However, I also believe that the potential risks of climate change warrant study, research and technological development. This substitute to Title X goes a long way towards achieving those goals. This amendment also recognizes that there are many contributors to climate change beyond CO2, and I appreciate that black soot is included. (snip)

This would seem a fairly harmless statement, if one just skimmed over the Congressional Record. Unfortunately for Mr. Thompson, not everyone skims over it. Title X was part of Tom Daschle’s

[calcowgirl]

IMO, he is one of those riding the fence (unlike Huckabee who has jumped in whole-heartedly with Gore and Schwarzenegger’s cap-and-trade scam)

But, I have a problem with the folks who are going to go along with new laws, regulations and spending saying “well, if we’re wrong, at least we’ll have less pollution” (or similar statements). It is my understanding that is what Mitt did in Massachussets (link below)

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/05/07/romney_hedges_on_global_warming/

[pissant]

see some more truth in post 36

[2ndDivisionVet]

"Just like you, I have a strongly preferred candidate."

How did you uncover my secret?

[W04Man]

There you go doing it in the wind again....

[Finny]

Thanks for the link. Good to see Thompson in action with idiots who ask stupid global warming questions thinking it's a legit issue. Of course climate change is "real" -- IT'S BEEN HAPPENING FOR THE PAST 4.5 BILLION YEARS!!!!

Beyond that, I saw Thompson in a crowded room in a meet-and-greet context where only a FOOL of a candidate would respond with remarks classifying the question itself as moronic.

I openly admit that I would prefer to hear Thompson say things like, "This is a 'problem' that's really a cyclical condition that's been a reality on this planet since long before recorded history and geological evidence of the ages indicates that what we do or don't do will have zero affect." Of course I'd rather ALL REPUBLICANS say that. But Thompson didn't say it, and neither has any other Republican candidate, sadly. I'm diasppointed.

But here's the deal. Thompson doesn't just say now because it's expedient that he pursues small, less-intrusive government options; he has a track record that demonstrates it. If I have to settle with a politician who even remotely validates the global warming hoax, I'd damned sure rather it be Thompson, a politician who hasn't made a habit of creating more and bigger government programs as the "solution" to all problems ala Romney and Giuliani.

I don't expect Thompson to be 100 percent right-on with regard to how I want him to be, but so far, he's batting a LOT better on the issues than the alternatives. More important, the philosophical princpiples of smaller government that he follows are better guides to how he will handle issues than sound-bites from be-nice-to-the-idiots meet-and-greet campaign stops.

[festus]

In a thread about “Fred Thompson The Global Warming President” and responding to comments about Freds words on global warming the best that you can come up with is Title X sucks ?

Go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

[redgirlinabluestate]

I think the "insurance policy" route is a pragmatic one for conservatives to adopt. While we don't believe any of this AlGore Global Warming crap, there are some things we can, and should do, in order to be good stewards of God's earth. Romney's approach is just right.

Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, Romney's plan focuses on voluntary initiatives. The plan includes no enforcement mechanism for requiring attainment of the goals.

Some of the most economically punitive measures activist groups frequently propose to reach such goals, such as energy taxes and emission caps, are not included in his plan.

Romney made a special effort to convey that he personally had doubts about alarmist global warming theory, going so far as to attach a letter to the plan's final version suggesting he remains unconvinced that man-made greenhouse gases are an environmental problem.

[Reagan Man]

A purely innocuous statement from Fred.
Fact is, you Duncanista`s wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in the butt.

[pissant]

No worries, I won’t expose ya.

[Finny]

As much as I love and adore Free Republic, and as much as I agree with you (which is totally) in saying that the global warming agenda is based on a hoax, I think that if Hunter is relying primarily on FR as a national campaign vehicle, he’s going to miss a lot of potential voters.

[pissant]

Good grief, hoss....I mean festus, the entire article is about Title X and your gal’s support of it.

[Tailgunner Joe]

"There's got to be a global solution to it, there's got to be an international solution before we can do anything." - LINK

"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." - LINK

[pissant]

I sure as hell hope he ain’t relying on FR. If so, I better toss in the hat.

[Calpernia]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1872200/posts
Statement of U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham

[pissant]

Apparently it is having an affect. Got lots more Hunter fans here now than we had 6 months ago. I’ll keep pissing.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I’m not sure NRTL really cares much about the candidate’s position on Global Warming.

[pissant]

Seems Fred runs with the GW crowd. McCain and Abraham. LOL

[steelyourfaith]

~~ AGW™ ping~~

[pissant]

Probably not. Apparently care little about positions on abortion too.

[calcowgirl]

None of the candidates give me 100%. When all of their positions are on the table, I’ll have to vote based on a process of elimination—which ones have the fewest black marks on the issues I think are most important.

FYI, I do think this issue is one of the most vital to our future, as environmental mandates and arbitrary caps can destroy our economy and only aid the commies in wealth redistribution.

When I heard Huckabee’s position on Global Warming, he joined Giuliani on my “will-not-vote-for” list. He is that far off in left field. When I see comments from Fred about wanting to pursue a global solution, to something that is not even proven to be a problem, I don’t like it. He has Inhofe as an advisor—I sure wish he would listen to him!!!!