Since the question WAS asked as a yes or no question, it's clear that Fred has a much more nuanced stance on the issue than to say "no, man is not causing global warming".
IN case you think I'm making this up, here is what Fred says about it on his web site:
And while we don’t know for certain how or why climate change is occurring, it makes sense to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy. Overall, I am committed to:
- A balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources.
- Investing in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment.
- An energy policy that invests in the advanced technologies of tomorrow and places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency.
- Conducting research and development into technologies that improve the environment, especially the reduction of CO2 emissions.
Gingrich has bought into global warming. I've been very skeptical, but I don't think I could simply answer "no" to that question -- it seems unlikely that man is a major factor, and whether man is an overal positive or negative is yet to be seen.
But SOME of what we would do to combate "global warming" I think are simply smart conservative things to do (in this sense, I tend to agree with Gingrich, even though I think his premise is wrong). We should conserve energy by more efficient use. We should find better ways to package goods so there is less waste. We should find manufacturing methods that reduce pollution, reduce byproducts, and reduce energy use.
We should find ways to cut our gasoline consumption. We should switch to nuclear electricity which is much better for the environment. We should encourage developers to leave the trees. We should try to minimize the mass of land that is paved over. We should leave wetlands and growth areas to protect runoff into our streams, rivers, and lakes.
We should find ways to reduce the chemicals needed to grow crops, and to protect them from disease and insects (OK, some of this is not global warming anymore, but simple environmentalism). genetic engineering should be encouraged to make plants more resistant.
But we should also realise that the planet's climate has been swinging back and forth since way before we developed "carbon footprints", and therefore we should do long-term planning for how we as a nation will survive and flourish if another ice age hits, or if the ocean level rises a foot or more. Be Prepared.
Frankly, I worry both about those who immediately answered yes, AND those who were firmly answering no. Fred was RIGHT that the question was not a yes-or-no question, that there is something to say about the topic.
I'm glad Fred spoke out.
Sen Inhofe has endorsed Thompson. No doubtthey have discussed what’s really going on with “global warming”
S.AMDT.3232
Amends: S.517 , S.AMDT.2917
Sponsor: Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] (submitted 4/22/2002)
(proposed 4/23/2002)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To establish a national climate change policy.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S3054-3059
STATUS:
4/23/2002:
Amendment SA 3232 proposed by Senator Bingaman to Amendment
SA 2917. (consideration: CR S3145-3148) 4/23/2002:
Amendment SA 3232 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
Sen Murkowski, Frank H. [AK] - 4/22/2002
Sen Byrd, Robert C. [WV] - 4/22/2002
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 4/22/2002
Sen Thompson, Fred [TN] - 4/22/2002
Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] - 4/22/2002
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 4/22/2002
Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] - 4/22/2002
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME] - 4/22/2002
147 posted on 11/13/2007 9:22:45 PM PST by calcowgirl
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1924826/posts?page=138#138