Posted on 11/12/2007 5:21:11 PM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanwriter2007.blogspot.com ...
>>>Well, he did spend his days in office as part of the Centrist Coalition with Arlen and Olympia
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-bloggers/1903111/posts
1997 - Moderate senators taking on stalled budget as bipartisan force
Moderate senators taking on stalled budget as bipartisan force
Centrist Coalition plans alternative to Clinton proposal.
(snip)
Freshman Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) attended the coalition’s first meeting and are considering joining, Chafee said.
(snip)
Nobody is perfect. Fred makes some good points on the issue, and at least approaches with skepticism. It makes him better than a few of his opponents.
Hunter also weighed in on global warming, saying that regardless of what the studies say, the U.S. should explore alternative fuel sources for use by the Department of Defense. The military has an interest in being able to run its operations off a renewable source, he said.
"Few people in global warming can tell you exactly what's happening," he said. "And there is a difference in opinion as to how fast because ice ages have come and gone, how much of the country would be warming, how much the glaciers are receding - how much of that is attributable to mankind, and how much of it is attributable to the natural cycle? But I don't think you have to answer that question to do what I've recommended. I think we have lots of reasons to be energy independent."
Perfect answer, IMO.
Duncan and Mitt agree on more things than do Duncan and Fred(tort reform, HLA, "no new taxes" pledge etc)
I vehemently disagree.
This is not about being “good stewards.”
It’s about the UN and others increasing their influence over our economy and causing wealth distribution through arbitrary caps.
It’s wrong and should be violently opposed—not treated as an “insurance policy” or considered “pragmatic.”
He joined. And stayed in til he left. But all these ‘Fred is a staunch conservative’ folks bat that away as if it were meaningless.
See this:
And finally, not Fred Thompson. While certainly a more reliable Republican than the fellas mentioned above, Thompson’s brand of conservatism includes some gaping holes which stray far from the vision of Ronald Reagan and the GOP platform. First and foremost is abortion. Reagan was in favor of ending the scourge, not just overturning Roe v. Wade, which Fred has endorsed. Thompson uses the same rhetoric as the pro-abortion types to justify opposition to a ban on the heinous practice. Not wanting to “criminalize young mothers” has been part and parcel of the pro-abortionist argument for decades; and it is nothing short of snake oil. Thompson also lacks Reagan’s candor. Though he claims the pro-life position now, he never did in the 1990s; quite the opposite. Yet he trots around the country saying he has always been pro-life, because he voted for certain restrictions when they came before the congress. During his Senate career, Thompson never once gave a pro-life speech, offered up a restrictive bill or an amendment, or in any way was active in the movement. Instead, we have numerous pro-choice statements and surveys, and this man has the gall to pretend he has always been pro-life. That is flat out false. And there is one other certainty. A man who promoted liberal Howard Baker over Reagan for the presidency, was co-chairman of John McCain’s campaign in 2000, and spent his years in the Senate as a member of the CENTRIST COALITION - concocting prize winners like Campaign Finance Reform, the elimination of the B2 bomber, and attempts to ditch the GOP platform - is called a moderate, not a conservative. Frankly, the only thing Fred had in common with the Gipper was an avowed affection for federalism. But even that was sporadic, considering the millions in ‘federal’ funds Fred shoveled into creating boondoggle “Institutes” for Baker, liberals Paul Simon and John Glenn, gay marriage pimp Robert Stafford, and race baiting, NAACP former chairman, Benjamin Hooks. But ask him about his past stances, and ol’ straight shooter Fred Thompson suddenly morphs into fleet-footed Fred Astaire. Just ask Laura Ingraham.
http://newswhichcannotlose.blogspot.com/2007/11/duncan-hunter-offers-return-to.html
Well, the evidence keeps stacking up...
EGAD!
Yes, I agree. We should resist arbitrary caps and the UN influencing anything. There is a whole lot of area in between arbitrary caps and being good stewards, however.
http://grampus.townhall.com/g/be6b3e0b-2f2a-41f6-9d6a-aa4d04252a01
Excerpt:
Duncan Hunter also weighed in on global warming, saying that regardless of what the studies say, the U.S. should explore alternative fuel sources for use by the Department of Defense. The military has an interest in being able to run its operations off a renewable source, he said.
“Few people in global warming can tell you exactly what’s happening,” he said. “And there is a difference in opinion as to how fast because ice ages have come and gone, how much of the country would be warming, how much the glaciers are receding - how much of that is attributable to mankind, and how much of it is attributable to the natural cycle? But I don’t think you have to answer that question to do what I’ve recommended. I think we have lots of reasons to be energy independent.”
Energy independence—Yes.
Pollution control—No.
You don’t put greenhouse gas caps on industry or countries to achieve energy independence.
The “pragmatic” “insurance policy” portion, and the “good steward” stuff is just accepting the Gore plan.
Hunter sees this as a national security issue, primarily. His position is that regardless of the science or Global warming the USA needs to be energy independent, and he does not exclude fossil fuels, in fact he wants to extract as much coal and oil as we can find, he addressed that in his Wyoming speech. So the chances are nil that Hunter will make any international agreement with respect to global warming.
>>>You missed the live FR-Hunter press conference I take it? It was the very first question he answered.<<<
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1880600/posts
Welcome Congressman Duncan Hunter - LIVE Thread (virtual Free Republic press Conference)
I will say this. Romney seems alot more skeptical than Huckabee.
The USA should not waste one penny attempting to reduce CO2 emissions. I want Americans to emit more and more CO2 because I am pro-growth. Fred wants to put limits on growth.
Time for round II, BTW. I’ll get it arranged.
>>>>All things I’d say and I don’t believe in global warming either.
Psst. Don’t let Al Gore hear you say that.
NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568
>>>...cap-and-trade scam...
China now accounts for 43 per cent of total CERs registered at the UN.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1775002/posts
Trading Hot Air?
Why are you posting these attacks on Fred? Fred was simply concerned with the “potential” threats at that time. Fred is running for President now and has no such concerns, so why all the attacks on a a good conservative. Fred is a Federalist and he believes Global Warming is a matter for the states as the founders and framers intended.
This was likely nothing more than a staffers mistake and Fred will get around to clearing this up just as soon as is he is ready. Fred doesn’t dance to anyones tune. Fred knows what he is doing. This was probably subterfuge and Fred will spring into action just when they think he is for Global Warming and spring the trap he has set for them. Move on, nothing to see here.
Absolutely! By leaps and bounds! Huckabee drank the full bowl of koolaid!
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.