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?
Well, I listen to Rush and have for years. He saw through this whole scam from the beginning and I agreed with him.
Not saying this is a deal breaker for most people, but it kinda is for me. Ridiculous regulations and all the green crapola has been a nightmare for industry and for us.
Look at small things ... say, the light globe fisasco. And they try to Green everything. I just bought a new washing machine and learned that EPA regs prevent manufacturers from making good washing machines. Just tiny examples.