My evidence is the body of thought he's been putting out almost continuously ever since he was Speaker. He's done books, columns, expert commentary on TV news programs, and so forth.
He's done "books, columns" and "expert commentary" specifically on the non-existence of global climate change? Precisely where was this?
Or do you mean he's a movement doctrinaire conservative now taking a non-doctrinaire stance on climate change. And thus it can't be that he's looked at the available information and rendered a rational decision. That he manages to hold within himself ideas contrary to the conservative line - or that he doesn't even find his ideas to be contrary to the conservative line - but that he's lying. Making it all up.
(Obviously, given the reaction here, Newt's signing his own death warrant with orthodox conservatism...)
The attempts to describe climate science as "religion" are interesting, given your (and others') reaction. You are explicitly taking your beliefs as an incontrovertible article of faith - no disagreement may be brooked, all dissenters are crooks/liars/panderers/etc..
"Examine" and "re-evaluate" mean pretty much the same thing, Chief.
No, they don't.
Examine is fairly close to evaluate. Had you said that I wished for you to evaluate your beliefs, you would have been close enough, and I would not have needed to correct you. Examine is not, however, interchangeable with re-evaluate. An examination may lead to a re-evaluation - perhaps this is the source of your confusion.
Were you to read more carefully, rather than creating words for me, you would understand what I wrote. I did not write or suggest that Newt's position should, in and of itself, cause you to alter your beliefs. I wrote that when someone who is not otherwise impeachable as an agent of the Commie Pinko Tree-Hugging Lib'rul Conspiracy takes a position on climate change contrary to yours, this is an opportunity to examine your beliefs. To judge them against his positions, to use them as a tool to strengthen your arguments. Perhaps, in doing so, you would ultimately re-evaluate your stance, but maybe not. Perhaps you would just be a better advocate for your side.
Instead, you chose to attack the messenger (Gingrich), thus averting any need to give thought to the potential truth of his position.
To whit - exactly what I said in the first place.
Kudos.
You have a nasty habit of tripping over the definitions of words and completely missing the ideas those words express. The concepts are what matter, not the definitions.
The "ideas those words express" were mine, buddy. Hence my correction of your misstatement.
I am, if anything, a competent writer. Rusty when it comes to formalities, as I haven't written a paper in years. Prone to digressions (always my curse) and far too many subordinate clauses. But ultimately very good with the language itself.
When I type 'examine,' I mean examine. Not 're-evaluate.' This is not a difficult thing to understand, and I would appreciate it if you would not misquote me in the future, nor craft arguments out of thin air.
