Posted on 11/16/2008 3:05:24 PM PST by neverdem
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich recently did a global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi that was sponsored by Nobel Laureate Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection (embedded right).
Obviously, he has taken a lot of heat -- no pun intended -- from conservatives for not only staking out a seemingly unconservative position on this controversial issue, but doing so in such a high-profile way with the likes of Pelosi and Gore.
Update: Sheppard responds to his critics at end of post.
With that in mind, Gingrich posted the following explanation [1] at his blog (emphasis added, h/t Terra Rossa [2]):
The Gingrich-Pelosi Climate Change Ad: Why I Took Part
Many of you have written to me to ask why I recently taped an advertisement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for The Alliance for Climate Protection, a group founded by former Vice President Al Gore.
I completely understand why many of you would have questions about this, so I want to take this opportunity to explain my reasons. First of all, I want to be clear: I don't think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don't think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.
But here's what we do know. There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that's a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can't have a slogan of "Just yell no!"
I have a different view. I think it's important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government., more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we're going to get the former. That's why I took part in the ad.
Frankly, I think this makes a lot of sense. After all, if conservatives aren't at this environmental bargaining table, our views will not be represented, and the left likely will be able to ram through any legislative proposals they want.
To prevent this, we've got to be involved, or we shouldn't be surprised with what results come from all this global warming hysteria.
In the end, having a brilliant mind like Gingrich's at that table appears well worth this instance of strange bedfellows.
As usual, Newt is engaging in revisionist history. In his "debate" with Kerry Newt said that global warming was real, man was the princpal cause, and it was urgent that we do something about it. Newt is a fraud.
Oh...I thought it was about his reasoning that affected the decision to do it.
Hansen has to swallow his words. Data showed October was
one of the COLDEST on record.
If this global warming hoax is exposed after we have
bankrupted nations & companies, then what???
That, plus being poorly informed about the nonsense of global warming or maybe he was trying to earn “brownie points” with the Democrats. RINO’s will do almost anything that puts them in the news.
His reasoning does not negate the fact he did it....
DUH
I wonder is there a part of a conservatives base that actually wants (even in a minor way) to be part or supportive of developing green technology? And if so. Why? These are some of the things we as conservatives need to grapple over (as a group and some individually).
I personally do not think that humans are responsible for global warming and honestly I am not wholly sure there is such an establishment that global warming exists. Maybe it has been proven or shown, but I guess I am not really paying attention here as I am more distracted by the insanity of the left and their made up world of global 'bore'ning.
I do know though that since I received a brainwashing by libs in high school--LOL I think--I have been interested in solar energy, wind energy. Since I grew up in a small community that had sidewalks to walk everywhere and later a city that had lots of citywide bike paths, I love the idea of cycle and walking options in addition to car streets.
I like ease of gas, but I also like the idea of new companies or even old companies coming out with cars and trucks that offer other options. ( I hate that we are dependent on terrorist and their countries for oil. I feel it is a security issue for our country. ) Alternate fueled cars and trucks though have to be something consumers will respond to. They have to meet the needs of the consumer and also their tastes--Prius--NOT!!! Butt Ugly. Stupid. Small. Give me a break! Whoever wants that great. Don't force that nasty little thing on me though!
I have never liked pollution or toxins and love the world God has given me and want to see its beauty upheld. I hate toxins in my meat or steroids. Depending on what it is, I think green technology and at times green city planning as being a positive direction from MY perspective. However! Green and green planning needs to be defined. Is worth it and why? I do not support more regulation, more government, forcing my reality on others that see no reason for it. Or taking away people's cars because I like walking or riding a bike or the idea of solar panels or wind mills.
I think green housing and technology can be innovative and a capitalist function, not a forced issue. Heck it is expensive to do some of this stuff and it should be people that are interested in giving it a try, but great let the market dictate need. Don't shove it down our throats or even shun those who do not agree on it. In southern California I can see where the backups on freeways and roadways impact capitalism. Keeping it from functioning more efficiently.
This is where I am at today. Taking a view away from a defensive stand against liberal but offensively where are we with green stuff? The environment? What the heck does 'green' really mean to a conservative? It means grass to me :-). It means riding my bike to work or walking to work, but having the option to also drive my car and ultimately not being dependent on arabs for oil. It means a thriving innovative capitalism that is answering the needs of consumers and keeping government out! How do we interact with any of this from a conservative perspective as Newt talked about? Is there even anything to discuss except stop these yahoos doing any damage (the whacked out environmental fascists.)?
Thanks for those that read thus far. I am just working through some of this out loud and am curious what other's thoughts are. Please not to many flames. I really am just brainstorming and writing as if I am thinking to in hopes others will share too.
Did you read his reasoning? I agree with him 100%. All we have done is say “no” without getting our hands dirty and demanding scientific proof!
YES!
I don’t believe in the global warming crap.
But for some to vent on Newt when some of their own
such as Bob Barr are actually into the Gloal Warming
agenda is disingenuous.
Good point. This is also what I wonder as well. I want to get to the bottom of this. Is this just as you say or is there a real there there that will promote conservatism and keep us going forward with out being impacted by liberal's manipulation and intimidation.
The only one thing that stands out is the security issue regarding getting oil from the middle east and coming up with new options.
I think we need to be wary of what you have asked.
Newt you did a stupid thing. Here’s what to do: “I made a mistake. I renounce the positions espoused in that stupid ad, and I will never be in agreement with Nancy Pelosi again.”
It seems us conservatives for whatever reason have ‘publically’ (our leaders) not necessarily privately amongst ourselves have been in heavy duty REACTION mode on EVERYTHING except spending which has generally ended up with agreeing on spending as much as possible. Our party right now is dead, until we get a solid foundation to sell and be on the offensive with ideas and clarity on conservative solutions going forward.
Calling it as you see it :-D. I like it.
....Newt the nitwit.... maybe someone should run interviews with his first couple of wives....see if the performance matches the words.... Maybe set off the video with Newt’s idea of relaxing at the office with special friends. ... That might not play on the Family Channel /sarcasm
Except his presence in the ad shows support for the bunk. This explanation is what’s wrong with Republicans. By negotiating on these things, you accept their premise and you are already lost. Any compromise with evil can only be less evil, never good.
Aren't scientists who publish false data punished
by their peers?
I thought it was good reasoning and there is no need to be condescending. We both probably agree on a lot concerning the global warming garbage.
I loved Cheney when he talked about the warming where he was at that day was called spring. LOL. Summed up all up quite nicely. :-D I am going to miss that dry poignant humor, I must admit. That should be our stand everywhere in our party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.