Shouldn’t common sense have told Newt waaay back in 2008/2009 that global warming was a farce? I saw that myself and I have no inside info.
Whether he changed because of studies or because of conservative opinion, it was late and has he really changed.
It’s important that our candidate is firmly opposed to stifling EPA regulations because of the phony global warming thing.
More of the country believed in climate science than didn’t prior to East Anglia exposure in 2009. That is beginning to reverse. Saw a poll the other day where only about half the nation thinks it’s an important issue now. That’s a big step down.
Of course there were a number of us out there saying we weren’t buying it, but we were reading the scientists opposed. There was nothing unethical about someone buying into the majority science opinion of the day.
What would be unethical, in my view, for those people to refuse to take East Anglia into account.
Newt did, and he came down on the side of “agnosticism” about the whole issue.
Will he stand by those convictions? I think so, but I also think that Gingrich has always looked at the implementation side of any scientific fact or idea. I would expect his question to be: How can you go after all the energy possible and do it in an environmentally sound way?