Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 04/06/2007 2:56:14 PM PDT by Kimmers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
To: Kimmers

It will be fun to watch Newt pound Kerry into the ground with one hand tied behind his back, but since the whole “Global Warming” thing is a religion and not a science, I doubt that many will be converted because those who believe in it do so despite evidence to the contrary.


2 posted on 04/06/2007 3:00:17 PM PDT by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers
Doesn't sound like a fair fight to me.

(But it will be fun to watch.)

3 posted on 04/06/2007 3:00:17 PM PDT by keats5 (tolerance of intolerant people is cultural suicide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers
Newt Gingrich to Debate John Kerry on Climate Change

Now how is it that we already know what their opinions on the matter will be?

9 posted on 04/06/2007 3:25:34 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers
Image hosted by Photobucket.com i knew the worthless POS was stooopid... i just didn't know HOW stoooooopid till now.

he'll find out how stooopid he is nexr week!!!

12 posted on 04/06/2007 3:32:54 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers

Newt better start out saying that the whole thing is a lie to make America succome to socialism/marxism.


14 posted on 04/06/2007 3:55:02 PM PDT by advertising guy (If computer skills named us, I'd be back-space delete.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers

“When I was patrolling the MeKong Delta in Vietnam, a war I served in by the way, I witnessed first-hand the dangers of climate change. It’s seared into my brain.”


16 posted on 04/06/2007 4:43:07 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Ben Franklin, we tried but we couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers

Anybody know about Newt’s new plan, “Contract with the Earth”? I saw him recently and he was saying it would be available in book form soon. Green and smart was how Newt put it.

Newt used to teach Earth science(or some similar topic) ... not going to be a fair fight.


20 posted on 04/06/2007 5:37:41 PM PDT by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers
This will be as cringe-worthy as the South Park episode about "cripple fight," between Timmy and the kid who thinks he's a comedian but always stutters on the punchlines.

Newt will show up Algore, certainly. But the problem is that neither of them have any qualifications to debate climate science in the first place. Algore is a former divinity student and Newt is a history professor. I hope the first round of questions to both of them serve to establish their understanding of the subject they are going to debate.

Speaker Gingrich, please define an "adiabatic process."

[Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process ]

Vice President Gore, please define an "isochoric process."

[Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochoric ]

Okay, now that we've established that neither of you have even a college-sophomore level of understanding of thermodynamics, lets get on with the "global warming" debate.


21 posted on 04/06/2007 5:44:49 PM PDT by omnivore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers

I would have a better chance debating Einstein on quantum physics than Kerry has against newt.


24 posted on 04/06/2007 6:57:30 PM PDT by TheRedSoxWinThePennant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: StarFan; Dutchy; alisasny; BobFromNJ; BUNNY2003; Cacique; Clemenza; Coleus; cyborg; DKNY; ...
WASHINGTON — Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich will face off next week with Sen. John Kerry in a debate over climate change.

The debate is scheduled for Tuesday (April 10, 2007) at 10 a.m. in the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C.

Mark your calendars! I'm sure there will be a live thread going on FR Tuesday morning...

27 posted on 04/07/2007 12:00:23 AM PDT by nutmeg (The Democrats' "new direction" for Iraq: SURRENDER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers
If Newt don't drop him first round like he was Dame Edna with arthritis..
The fight is fixed.. and Newt is a "ringer"... poseur, shill..
32 posted on 04/07/2007 12:30:21 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers
From what I heard on Hannity's program yesterday it sounds as if the debate will be a kissing contest on Newt's part.

Newt now sounds more like an anti-global warming adherent.

It's rather like the Sweathog Algore appearing before the limp-wristed pansy senate panel, with the exception of Senator Imhoffe who attempted to get the heavily perspiring nut-case to answer a question.

Barbara Boxer was quite good as committee chairthing. Proving that Democrats are tanking so rapidly it's impossible to gauge the speed. It's all good news, however.

34 posted on 04/07/2007 5:02:11 AM PDT by mborman (No Rudys, please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers

Damn, it’s April, and it’s COLD here on the East Coast! That proves there’s Global Warming! ... Um, well, yeah, I know it’s COLD... but Global Warming is... um, unpredictable! The very Unpredictability of Global Warming proves it exists!

/sarcasm

I hope Newt cleans his clock, too (although he better watch out - JFK is a Vietnam Veteran, and should be approached with caution). Seriously, that pompous, self-important, phony JERK deserves a public humiliation that the last election didn’t quite accomplish. I want him whimpering on the floor, crying for John Edwards to come hold him and make it all better.

Okay, more wishful thinking...


36 posted on 04/07/2007 5:11:48 AM PDT by Pravious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers

I am more looking forward to Newt debating Rudy on the matter since it’s yet another situation where Rudy is totally aligned with the Dems.


37 posted on 04/07/2007 7:04:16 AM PDT by GovernmentIsTheProblem (Capitalism is the economic expression of individual liberty. Pass it on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers
Ya but,

What are they going to do when the subject of Cow Flatulence comes up as a major cause of Global Warming?


46 posted on 04/07/2007 1:02:31 PM PDT by taildragger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers

Climate change is a scientific issue not a political one... (Repeat three times a day, as needed)


55 posted on 04/07/2007 2:46:04 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers

If LongJohn incurs a wound during the debate, will he put in for another Purple Cross?


58 posted on 04/07/2007 2:52:19 PM PDT by toddlintown (Six bullets and Lennon goes down. Yet not one hit Yoko. Discuss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers
I can only answer this thread title:

Newt Gingrich to Debate John Kerry on Climate Change

with another thread title:

Mary, Mother of God

69 posted on 04/07/2007 7:47:52 PM PDT by Silly (plasticpie.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers
I don’t understand why 2 politicians will debate climate change. This should be a debate by scientists based on facts. Unfortunately it will devolve into a case of he said/he said. Scientists are out there in the field gathering data. If you want to prove or disprove the theory, lets get together in one room and look at the information side by side. Somehow I don’t think this will happen with Gingrich and Kerry.
72 posted on 04/08/2007 6:31:21 AM PDT by CJ-50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kimmers

Newt had better argue from the principles layed out below, or I won’t be supporting his argument:

#1 Principle, being:

Excerpt:
VIII. Environmental policies which emanate from liberty are the most successful.

Our chosen environment is liberty, and liberty is the central organizing principle of America. To be consistent with our most cherished principle, our environmental policies must be consistent with liberty. Restricting liberty not only denies Americans their chosen environment, but also constrains environmental progress.

Liberty has powerful environmental benefits. Freedom unleashes forces most needed to make our environment cleaner, healthier and safer for the future. It fosters scientific inquiry, technological innovation, entrepreneurship, rapid information exchange, accuracy and flexibility. Free people work to improve the environment, and liberty is the energy behind environmental progress.”

Individuals, Liberty and the Environment
The American Conservation Ethic
http://web.archive.org/web/20050306053745/http://www.nwi.org/ACE.html

© 1996 by the National Wilderness Institute
P.O. Box 25766, Washington, DC 20007
ph: (703)836-7404 fx: (703)836-7405 E-mail: nwi@nwi.org

Preface

The American Conservation Ethic is grounded in experience, science, wisdom and the enduring values of a free people. It affirms that people are the most important natural resource and that we must be good stewards of the world around us for this and future generations. It is founded upon a deep respect for the wonder, beauty and complexity of creation and is dedicated to the wise use of nature’s bounty. It reflects every American’s aspiration to make our environment cleaner, healthier and safer for our future, and it draws its strength from the most powerful force for improving our environment ­ free people.

The American Conservation Ethic works because, like the American people, it is practical. It applies the tried and true principles of individual rights and responsibilities to the conservation of our natural resources. Property rights create incentives that both reward good stewardship and empower individuals to protect their property from the harmful acts of others. The guarantee that we shall reap the fruits of our labor inspires the investment of time, money and effort necessary to expand upon centuries of accumulated arts and sciences. As we learn more, we are better able to be good stewards of natural resources.

The American Conservation Ethic relies upon science as a tool to guide public policy. Science is an invaluable tool for rationally weighing risks to human health and measuring other environmental impacts. Foremost among our measures of environmental quality are human health and well-being. Science also provides a means of assessing the costs and benefits of actions designed to reduce, control and remediate pollution or other environmental impacts. Central to the American Conservation Ethic is the understanding that scientific development, technological innovation and economic growth are essential for a cleaner, healthier and safer environment. As we increase our knowledge, we improve our productivity, efficiency and potential to innovate ­ and these achievements conserve energy, raw materials and other valuable resources. As we learn more about the natural world we discover how to get more than ever before from the resources we use. Progress provides the know-how, time and financial resources needed to fulfill our aspirations to improve the health, beauty and productivity of America.

The American Conservation Ethic is established on the fact that renewable natural resources are not fragile and static but resilient and dynamic. Such resources are continually regenerated through growth, reproduction or other naturally occurring processes which cleanse, cycle or otherwise create resources anew. Because these resources are continually renewed they can be used in a wise and responsible manner without the fear that they will be lost forever. Through progress we come to better understand renewable natural resources and the relationships among them. The knowledge gained improves our ability to wisely use and conserve these treasures for the benefit of current and future generations.

The American Conservation Ethic promotes workable means to reach our environmental goals, rather than depending on an inefficient centralized environmental bureaucracy. By relying on the first-hand knowledge and practical experience of local people and accounting for widely varying conditions, a site and situation specific approach provides practical solutions to the environmental challenges we face. The greater the degree to which solutions to environmental problems reflect the knowledge, needs and desires of those individuals most affected, the more successful they will be.

America has unsurpassed natural wealth. Our abundant mountains, plains, forests and coasts, our lakes, rivers and streams, our wildlife and fish are unique in all of the world. They have provided for and have been cherished by millions of Americans for generation after generation. Our people ­ living, growing and creating within our rich culture of liberty ­ are our greatest resource. Americans today clearly aspire to improve upon our tradition of wisely using and conserving the world around us for generations to come. The American Conservation Ethic is the way to fulfill these aspirations.

The American Conservation Ethic recognizes that free people work to improve the environment. It relies upon empowering individuals to use, enjoy and conserve our environment. It inspires and challenges individual Americans to improve their surroundings and lives, and thereby the world we share. Cumulatively, these are the most effective and dependable means to ensure a cleaner, healthier and safer environment, conserve America’s unique resources and protect that which we all treasure most ­ people and liberty.

Principles of the American Conservation Ethic

I. People are the most important resource.

All environmental policy should be based on the idea that people are the most important resource. The inherent value of each individual is greater than the inherent value of any other resource. Accordingly, the foremost measure of quality of our environment is human health, safety and well-being. A policy cannot be good for the environment if it is bad for people. The best judge of what is or is not desirable is the affected individual.

Human intellect and accumulated knowledge are the only means by which the environment can be willfully improved or modified. Environmental policies should inspire people to be good stewards. Within the framework of equity and liability individuals carry out deeds that create incremental benefits in the quality or quantity of a resource or improve some aspect of the environment. Cumulatively these deeds result in progress and provide direct and indirect environmental benefits to society.

II. Renewable natural resources are resilient and dynamic and respond positively to wise management.

Renewable natural resources ­ trees, plants, soil, air, water, fish and wildlife and collections thereof ­ wetlands, deserts, forests and prairies are the resources we are dependent upon for food, clothing, medicine, shelter and to meet innumerable other human needs. Human life depends upon their use and conservation. Such resources are continually regenerated through growth, reproduction or other naturally occurring processes which cleanse, cycle or otherwise create them anew. While all living organisms and activities produce byproducts, nature has a profound ability to carry, recycle, recover and cleanse. These characteristics make it possible for us to wisely use renewable resources now while ensuring they are conserved for future generations. As Teddy Roosevelt, a founding father of conservation, recognized: “A Nation treats its resources well if it turns them over to the next generation improved and not impaired in value.”

III. The most promising new opportunities for environmental improvements lie in extending the protection of private property and unleashing the creative powers of the free market.

Ownership inspires stewardship. Private property stewards have the incentive to enhance their resources and the incentive to protect them. Polluting another’s property is to trespass or to cause injury. Polluters, not those most vulnerable in the political process, should pay for damages done to others. Good stewardship is the wise use or conservation of nature’s bounty, based on our needs. With some exception, where property rights are absent, we must seek to extend them. If this proves elusive, we must seek to bring the forces of the market to bear to the greatest extent possible. There is a direct and positive relationship between modern market economies and a clean, healthy and safe environment. There is also a direct and positive relationship between the complexity of a situation and the need for freedom. Markets reward efficiency, which is environmentally good, while minimizing the harm done by unwise actions. In the market, successes are spread by example, and since costs are not subsidized but are borne privately, unwise actions are on a smaller scale and of a shorter duration. As a result, such actions are on a smaller scale and of a shorter duration. We must work to decouple conservation policies from regulation or government ownership. In aggregate, markets not mandates, most accurately reflect what people value and therefore choose for their environment.

IV. Our efforts to reduce, control and remediate pollution should achieve real environmental benefits.

The term pollution is applied to a vast array of substances and conditions that vary greatly in their effect on man. It is used to describe fatal threats to human health, as well as to describe physically harmless conditions that fall short of someone’s aesthetic ideal. Pollutants occur naturally or can be a by-product of technology. Their origin does not determine their degree of threat. Most carcinogens, for example, occur naturally but do not engender popular fear to the same degree that man-made carcinogens do. Microbiological pollutants, bacteria and viruses, though natural, are by far the most injurious form of pollution. Technology and its byproducts must be respected but not feared. Science is an invaluable tool for rationally weighing risks to human health or assessing and measuring other environmental impacts. Health and well-being are our primary environmental measures. Science also provides a means of considering the costs and benefits of actions designed to reduce, control and remediate pollution or other environmental impacts so that we may have a cleaner, healthier and safer environment.

V. The Learning Curve is Green.

As we accumulate additional knowledge we learn how to get more output from less input. The more scientific, technical and artistic knowledge we have, the more efficient we are in meeting our needs. As we gain knowledge, we are able to conserve by substituting information for other resources. We get more miles per gallon, more board-feet per acre of timber, a higher agricultural yield per cultivated acre, more GNP per unit of energy. Technological advancement confers environmental benefits. Progress made it possible for the American farmer of today to feed and clothe a population more than two and a half times the size of the one we had in 1910 and triple exports over the same time frame while lowering the total acreage in production from 325 million to 297 million acres. That is 28 million acres less, an area larger than the state of Louisiana that is now available for other uses such as wildlife habitat. American agriculture has demonstrated that as an unintended consequence of seeking efficiencies, there are environmental benefits. As Warren Brookes used to put it simply , “The learning curve is green.” This phenomenon has a tremendous positive effect on our environment and progress along the learning curve is best advanced by the relentless competition in the market to find the best or wisest use of a resource.

VI. Management of natural resources should be conducted on a site and situation specific basis.

Resource management should allow for variation of conditions from location to location and time to time. A site and situation specific approach takes advantage of the fact that those closest to a resource are best able to manage it. Such practices allow us to set priorities and break problems down into manageable units. Natural resource managers, on site and familiar with the situation, whether tending to the backyard garden or the back forty pasture, are best able to determine what to do, how to do it and when to do it. They are able to adapt management strategies to account for feedback and changes. A site and situation specific management scheme fits the particulars as no government mandate or standard can. Additionally, a site and situation specific approach is more consistent with policies carried out at lesser political levels. The closer the management of natural resources is to the affected parties, the more likely it is to reflect their needs and desires. The more centralized management is, the more likely it is to be arbitrary, ineffectual or even counterproductive. A site and situation specific approach avoids the institutional power and ideological concerns that dominate politicized central planning.

VII. Science should be employed as a tool to guide public policy.

Societal decisions rely upon science but ultimately are the product of ethics, beliefs, consensus and many other processes outside the domain of science. Understanding science for what it is and is not is central to developing intelligent environmental polices. Science is the product of the scientific method, the process of asking questions and finding answers in an objective manner. It is a powerful tool for understanding our environment and measuring the consequences of various courses of action. Through science we can assess risks, as well as weigh costs against benefits. While science cannot be substituted for public policy, public policy on scientific subjects should reflect scientific knowledge. A law is a determination to force compliance with a code of conduct. Laws go beyond that which can be established with scientific certainty. Laws are based upon normative values and beliefs and are a commitment to use force. Commitments to use the force of law should be made with great caution and demand a high degree of scientific certainty. To do otherwise is likely to result in environmental laws based upon scientific opinions rather than scientific facts. Such laws are likely to be wasteful, disruptive or even counterproductive, as scientific opinions change profoundly and often at a faster pace than public policy. The notion behind the Hippocratic oath ­ first do no harm ­ should govern the enactment of public policy.

VIII. Environmental policies which emanate from liberty are the most successful.

Our chosen environment is liberty, and liberty is the central organizing principle of America. To be consistent with our most cherished principle, our environmental policies must be consistent with liberty. Restricting liberty not only denies Americans their chosen environment, but also constrains environmental progress.

Liberty has powerful environmental benefits. Freedom unleashes forces most needed to make our environment cleaner, healthier and safer for the future. It fosters scientific inquiry, technological innovation, entrepreneurship, rapid information exchange, accuracy and flexibility. Free people work to improve the environment, and liberty is the energy behind environmental progress.


75 posted on 04/08/2007 12:26:03 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson