PDA

View Full Version : newt on global warming...


oldandslow
04-11-2007, 09:06 AM
...seems another has given in to the "green" force.

First McCain, then Rudy, and now Newt. I don't know Romney's views toward the subject....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001457_pf.html

Yesterday's global-warming debate between John Kerry and Newt Gingrich was, as the moderator put it, "advertised as a smack-down and a prizefight." But those labels were too modest for Kerry.

"Welcome to our environmental version of the Lincoln-Douglas debates," the former Democratic presidential nominee told the crowd in the Russell Caucus Room. "We flipped a coin, and I picked Lincoln."

But something funny happened on the way to 1858. Gingrich, a former Republican House speaker, refused to play Douglas to Kerry's Lincoln, instead positioning himself as a tree-hugging green.

Before Kerry got a word in, Gingrich conceded that global warming is real, that humans have contributed to it and that "we should address it very actively." Gingrich held up Kerry's new book, "This Moment on Earth," and called it "a very interesting read." He then added a personal note about saving vulnerable species from climate change. "My name, Newt, actually comes from the Danish Knut, and there's been a major crisis in Germany over a polar bear named Knut," he confided.

The warm and fuzzy Gingrich surprised Kerry, who jettisoned prepared remarks that accused the former speaker of "marching in lock step with the climate-change deniers." Instead, Kerry found himself saying: "I've always enjoyed every dialogue he and I have ever had." He added that "your statement is very, very important" and gushed: "I frankly appreciate the candor."

The debate ended. They shook hands. Kerry put an arm around Gingrich. Gingrich put an arm around Kerry. For a brief but terrifying moment, they appeared to be on the verge of a hug.

Before it swerved in the direction of PBS's "NewsHour," the debate had the potential to be a clash of the former titans. Both men are prone to self-inflicted verbal wounds -- Gingrich recently called Spanish the "ghetto" language, and Kerry said last year that bad students get "stuck in Iraq" -- and they had the appearance of natural adversaries.

Gingrich, stout and jowly, went largely unnoticed by the audience as he took his seat before the debate. Kerry, lean and preening, stood in the doorway until the moderator, New York University's Paul Light, inquired: "Senator, would you like to come out and join us?"

Until yesterday, Gingrich and Kerry were not likely candidates for an embrace. When Kerry was running for president in 2004, Gingrich said the senator "thrashed and smeared and lied about U.S. soldiers" and was guilty of "consistent distortion over and over and over again on every front."

But Gingrich, weighing a long-shot presidential run, is unpredictable. He proved that by meeting with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to discuss common ground on health care, and yesterday it was Kerry's turn to be surprised when Gingrich preemptively distanced himself from President Bush on global warming. "I agree entirely with whatever criticism the senator wants to make in general about the absence of American leadership," he said.

Even his one big difference with Kerry -- Gingrich favored tax incentives to reduce carbon dioxide rather than a government "cap and trade" program -- was negotiable. "I am not automatically saying that coercion and bureaucracy is not an answer," he granted.

Kerry appeared uncomfortable as Gingrich impersonated Al Gore. The senator tapped his foot, drummed his fingers, folded his arms and looked around the room with a crooked grin. He tried, at first, to lure Gingrich into a confrontation. "The essence of what I just heard from Newt," he said, is that climate change is "not such a crisis that we have to respond quickly."

Gingrich protested this mischaracterization. "We're not arguing over whether it should be urgent," he said.

Kerry persisted: "We're arguing over the level of the urgency."

"The question of urgency isn't what's being debated here," Gingrich repeated.

Finally, Kerry relented. "I'm excited to hear you talk about the urgency," he said. But "what would you say to Senator [Jim] Inhofe [R-Okla.] and to others in the Senate who are resisting even the science?"

Gingrich didn't hesitate. "My message," he said, "is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere." The pro-Kerry crowd applauded.

"And do it urgently?" the senator pressed.

"And do it urgently, yeah," the former speaker replied. "I think there has to be, if you will, a green conservatism," he added.

Kerry didn't know quite what to do with his agreeable opponent. "I'm a little confused about sort of where Newt comes from on this," he said at first. Later, Kerry tried to switch places with Gingrich, branding him a big-government liberal. "You know, this is a huge transition," he exclaimed. "You actually want the government to do it. I want the private sector to do it."

By the end of the debate, Lincoln/Kerry was embracing Douglas/Gingrich as a global-warming ally, saying things such as "What we need to do is what Newt just said."

"I'll lay odds if Newt Gingrich and I were responsible for making this happen, we could get in a room and in a week, we'd come up with a program and make it happen," Kerry ventured.

Gingrich nodded. Moments later, he held up his new friend's book again. "I'm going to sell a few more books for you, John," he promised.
__________________

Mr. Kotter
04-11-2007, 10:19 AM
I don't think many people really question whether global warming is happening--at least on some level....the real issues are....where are we headed, what is/has been our role in it, and what can and should be done about it? Of course, there is considerable room for disagreement on those issues.

oldandslow
04-11-2007, 10:30 AM
I don't think many people really question whether global warming is happening--at least on some level....the real issues are....where are we headed, what is/has been our role in it, and what can and should be done about it? Of course, there is considerable room for disagreement on those issues.

Obviously, you have not attempted to debate some of the "no global warming" folks on this board. :) Further, Gingrich is saying Humans did/do play a major role.

I agree with the second part of your statement. I think we should have started 30 years ago.

Mr. Kotter
04-11-2007, 10:42 AM
Obviously, you have not attempted to debate some of the "no global warming" folks on this board. :) Further, Gingrich is saying Humans did/do play a major role.

I agree with the second part of your statement. I think we should have started 30 years ago.I haven't really debated many folks on the issue; it's just not one of my top 3-4 issues, I guess.

The chicken little types do cause me to be skeptical--and I'm not saying you, but folks like Gore. I grew up in the 1970s, and remember the dire predictions of the population explosion, pollution, and worldwide famine....none of which has occurred on nearly the scale as was predicted back-in-the-day.

On the other hand, I do recognize the need to agressively do something about it at some point. However, I suspect you and I might disagree over the urgency of the problem, and the extent of control man really has in the matter.

Amnorix
04-11-2007, 10:46 AM
I seem to remember, somewhere in the deepest recesses of my memory, that Newt was more green than your average conservative.

I may be misremembering here, however. Glad to be corrected if I'm off base.

Amnorix
04-11-2007, 10:47 AM
The chicken little types do cause me to be skeptical--and I'm not saying you, but folks like Gore. I grew up in the 1970s, and remember the dire predictions of the population explosion, pollution, and worldwide famine....none of which has occurred on nearly the scale as was predicted back-in-the-day.


http://www.progets.com/simpsons/pics/holding%20box%20of%20Soylent%20Green.gif

Mr. Kotter
04-11-2007, 10:49 AM
http://www.progets.com/simpsons/pics/holding%20box%20of%20Soylent%20Green.gif

I've never watched that movie, only heard of it....but, yeah, it wasn't quite that bad. But there sure were a WHOLE lot of folks who were, in retrospect, crying "Wolf!"

patteeu
04-11-2007, 10:57 AM
The chicken little types

I heard Gingrich talking about this subject in an interview the other day.

I suspect that if the global warming issue was addressed in the way Newt Gingrich addresses it:

admitting that the science of climate change is far more complex and uncertain than many try to pretend,
avoiding the Gore-like exaggerations (or instances of cherry-picking worst-case-scenarios) of the risk,
encouraging market-based approaches,
pointing out the futility of American action without action on the part of countries like China and India, and last but certainly not least
emphasizing the need to avoid damaging our global competitiveness,

there would be a lot less resistance to the very idea of human-impacted global warming.

Mr. Kotter
04-11-2007, 11:03 AM
I heard Gingrich talking about this subject in an interview the other day.

I suspect that if the global warming issue was addressed in the way Newt Gingrich addresses it: admitting that the science of climate change is far more complex and uncertain than many try to pretend, avoiding the Gore-like exaggerations (or instances of cherry-picking worst-case-scenarios) of the risk, encouraging market-based approaches, pointing out the futility of American action without action on the part of countries like China and India, and last but certainly not least emphasizing the need to avoid damaging our global competitiveness,there would be a lot less resistance to the very idea of human-impacted global warming.

Absolutely.

tiptap
04-11-2007, 11:25 AM
So where is the present administration critics on this issue from the right. Oh yeah let's get excited about a candidate statement made running for office (candidate Bush stance vs the immedieately elected Bush on this issue). Suddenly upon election the cost to move away from fossil fuel isn't economically feasible because of the redisturbution of resources from existing infrastructure to new ones will cost anew as opposed to already existing infrastructure that is mostly paid for and is a money gererator. As such Patteeu little list comes parading out as an excuse to put off real costs. Never mind that the quicker we do so the quicker we can get pay back by saving money flow toward countries that have oil. This change does require a different paradigm in the energy generating system. A distributed one not a centrally controlled one.

patteeu
04-11-2007, 11:34 AM
So where is the present administration critics on this issue from the right. Oh yeah let's get excited about a candidate statement made running for office (candidate Bush stance vs the immedieately elected Bush on this issue). Suddenly upon election the cost to move away from fossil fuel isn't economically feasible because of the redisturbution of resources from existing infrastructure to new ones will cost anew as opposed to already existing infrastructure that is mostly paid for and is a money gererator. As such Patteeu little list comes parading out as an excuse to put off real costs. Never mind that the quicker we do so the quicker we can get pay back by saving money flow toward countries that have oil. This change does require a different paradigm in the energy generating system. A distributed one not a centrally controlled one.

Oh no! We're all going to die if we don't immediately implement a costly, unilateral big government solution. Forget all that rubbish about fiscal responsibility, let's drive taxes through the roof!

No thanks. If those are the terms, I'd rather watch the coastal regions sink into the sea. I'll fight over the scraps of civilization here in the highlands.

tiptap
04-11-2007, 11:53 AM
We are at the end of cycle for a great deal of our refining capacity in the US. We are at the end of the useful cycle of many Coal Plants. It is time to reinvest in infrastructure. The question is rather it will continue in a matter that serves the past or understands the future. The unilateralness is already in place with billions of government subsidies and tax breaks for existing fossil fuel burning regimen.

StcChief
04-11-2007, 11:56 AM
Oh no! We're all going to die if we don't immediately implement a costly, unilateral big government solution. Forget all that rubbish about fiscal responsibility, let's drive taxes through the roof!

No thanks. If those are the terms, I'd rather watch the coastal regions sink into the sea. I'll fight over the scraps of civilization here in the highlands.

Yeah. most of the east/south coast (FL, Gulf coast), much of Atlantic is prime to flood as it's low.

WC line seems "cliff" based higher. until the earthquake fault breaks it off
to sink or be an island.

We won't care as being in 'flyover' country will be fine. No body will be flying over they will be driving in.. :(

BucEyedPea
04-11-2007, 01:05 PM
No thanks. If those are the terms, I'd rather watch the coastal regions sink into the sea. I'll fight over the scraps of civilization here in the highlands.
Thanks! :(

Truth be told I was told five years ago by a GW Greenie that my house would be underwater by now...oh wait! That was all of Florida....one big sandbar that split off from Africa once upon a time. :p

patteeu
04-11-2007, 01:44 PM
Thanks! :(

Truth be told I was told five years ago by a GW Greenie that my house would be underwater by now...oh wait! That was all of Florida....one big sandbar that split off from Africa once upon a time. :p

LOL, sorry. If you're able to swim to Georgia, you can come and stay with me and my family until you get back on your feet. :)