I mean how do we resolve the fact that by buying into man-made global warming, even if only as a “contingency”, how do we avoid participating in the expansion of government, and increasing strangulation on business and personal life through regulation? Aren’t we then just part of the problem, no matter how we try to rationalise it that we’re merely trying to slow it down? If we’re not trying to “slow it down” by simply opposing a theory that is by no means universally accepted even in the scientific community, aren’t we still, no matter what we call it, contributing to the stranglehold of government and the erosion of natural liberty? And for what? Something that isn’t even a proven fact. That seems ridiculous.
Newt's acceptance of man made global warming seemed doubtful. He doesn't mind green energy if it's done through the market, not the gov't. He wants energy independence.