Has Newt sold his soul ??

[Boomhauer]

I have examined my beliefs, Global Warming is a religion with no God.

I thought Al Gore was the God of Global Warming? After all, he produced the global warming bible documentary "An Inconvienient Truth" (which, conveniently ripped the opening scene from The Day After Tomorrow)

I might start believing in global warming if all the environmentalists would stop driving SUVs and flying in private jets and start practicing what they preach.

Or not. Because it is total BS, anyway.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Whoa, Chief.  You just outdid yourself with the arrogance and vitriol.

You're missing a crucial pieces of this puzzle.  I had assumed you were familiar with Newt's new ideas, forgive me for that.

Newt has adopted a new strategy in the past few years.  He's made it clear in his recent writings that he thinks conservatives and Republicans should be less adamant about our principles and more interested in chasing mass-market appeal.  He now thinks we should be what the masses want, not what we think is right.  That's the reason behind his newfound fondness for GW.  He espouses GW because he thinks people are more likely to support politicians who espouse GW. 

Get this through your head, Chief:  It's not about believing in global warming, it's about putting popularity above principles! 

He's no longer the leader who stands for his principles and tries to advocate for what he thinks is right.  He'd rather win politically than try to do what's best for the country.  If Newt had moral courage in his soul, he's lost that soul.  If he used to be a man of great character and integrity, he's selling his character for a few votes and some popularity.  If we respected him for standing up for his principles, that respect is gone.

So, now you know the real story about Newt's reversal and about our reaction to it.  Now you can begin to understand why it is that Newt's reversal provides no real reason to reexamine or reevaluate our beliefs on global warming.

(BTW, we've already evaluated our beliefs on GW.  To look at them again now, because of Gingrich or for any other reason, would be to reevaluate or reexamine our beliefs.  Hey, if you're gonna quibble over the linguistics and ignore the ideas, then at least try to get it the linguistics right.  Or is this another example of that old arrogance, Chief?  Is it that you presume to know that we arrived at our GW beliefs without ever having evaluated or examined them in the first place...?)

In retrospect, it's obvious that I'm the only one of us who has evaluated/reevaluated/examined our beliefs vs Newt's.  You didn't even know what Newt's beliefs were.  You just assumed, because he said something that aligned with your views, he had been swayed by the incorruptible evidence and obvious rightness of your position.  You assumed the rest of us should look at that same evidence and be equally swayed by it, and when we didn't you implied that there's something wrong with us.  You launched a flurry of hypocritical attacks based on your own misunderstandings and false presumptions. 

You really outdid yourself this time, Chief.  I'll admit that I'm looking forward to next time, though.
 

[HankB]

. . . I might start believing in global warming if all the environmentalists would stop driving SUVs and flying in private jets and start practicing what they preach.

The only "environmentalist" I'm aware of that actually does appear to practice what he preaches is that international superstar, Ed Begley, Jr.

If people like Algore, Streisand, Pelosi, etc., really did believe what they say, then they, themselves, would live a different lifestyle.  (Who was it that said the best priests of a religion are those who believe in it the least?)

In any case, here's what Newt says about making the ad with Pelosi.

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.

[gunsmith]

Hmm, that sounds very nice, but there is a reason that only the lefty anti American big gov't goons are the only ones in the climate changing global whine, despite Newt calling it a debate

[wooderson]

Newt has adopted a new strategy in the past few years.  He's made it clear in his recent writings that he thinks conservatives and Republicans should be less adamant about our principles and more interested in chasing mass-market appeal.  He now thinks we should be what the masses want, not what we think is right.  That's the reason behind his newfound fondness for GW.  He espouses GW because he thinks people are more likely to support politicians who espouse GW. 

"Newt's started taking positions I disagree with, so he no longer has any principles."

I do enjoy your continued hole-digging.

[roo_ster]

wooderson:

Snark is not an effective substitute for subject matter expertise.

[Scout26]

Heard on the Radio today that a respected NASA geophyicist is predicting Global Cooling due to the lack of Sunspot activity.

Looks like we need more CO2 released (if you believe the bunch of horse hooey) so we won't have "Climate Change".

[wooderson]

jfruser, what 'expertise'? I can read - and the long version of "anyone who disagrees with me is dishonest" remains "anyone who disagrees with me is dishonest."

That Headless claims expertise on the mental workings of Newt Gingrich - with precious little concrete evidence to back his statements - is worthy only of snark. How else can it be responded to? "NO, I READ NEWT'S MIND BETTER THAN YOU"?

Heard on the Radio today that a respected NASA geophyicist is predicting Global Cooling due to the lack of Sunspot activity.

The radio lied to you.

An Australian who flew with NASA made this claim, not a "respected NASA geophysicist."

[gunsmith]

http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-apr2308-brundage_ski_season.91ca3969.html

We also have had a bunch of snow the last few weeks, freaking cold here, I could use some warming.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Newt has adopted a new strategy in the past few years.  He's made it clear in his recent writings that he thinks conservatives and Republicans should be less adamant about our principles and more interested in chasing mass-market appeal.  He now thinks we should be what the masses want, not what we think is right.  That's the reason behind his newfound fondness for GW.  He espouses GW because he thinks people are more likely to support politicians who espouse GW. 

"Newt's started taking positions I disagree with, so he no longer has any principles."

I do enjoy your continued hole-digging.

That's the best you could come up with, Chief? 

I feel let down.  Disappointed, even.

 

Oh well.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

jfruser, what 'expertise'? I can read - and the long version of "anyone who disagrees with me is dishonest" remains "anyone who disagrees with me is dishonest."

That Headless claims expertise on the mental workings of Newt Gingrich - with precious little concrete evidence to back his statements - is worthy only of snark. How else can it be responded to? "NO, I READ NEWT'S MIND BETTER THAN YOU"?

Ah, that's better.  That sorta resembles a response.

I don't claim to have read Newt's mind.  I only claim to have read his writings.  Maybe you should try reading his writings.  I bet that would serve you better than pretending you know what you're talking about. 

You can start by reading the snippet HankB posted.  It's a prime example of what I've been saying all throughout this thread. 

Newt states that GW isn't proven.  He says we should formulate a conservative GW policy anyway.  He isn't interested in whether or not global warming is real.  He's perfectly willing to act as though it's real (even if that's wrong) in order to be on the winning side of the GW policy debate.

[Perd Hapley]

Nah, he's just hot for Nancy Pelosi, that's all. 

Aren't we all?   

[wooderson]

Headless, if you think Newt's statement in any way resembles the motives you've attributed to him, your inability to distinguish between examine and re-evaluate (and 'uncritical'/'ignorant' etc.) makes much more sense.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Headless, if you think Newt's statement in any way resembles the motives you've attributed to him, your inability to distinguish between examine and re-evaluate (and 'uncritical'/'ignorant' etc.) makes much more sense.

Aww, Chief.  Don't disappoint me again.  Surely you can muster a response with some substance, not just empty insults.

Why don't you try again.  We'll call this one a mulligan.

[Scout26]

The radio lied to you.

An Australian who flew with NASA made this claim, not a "respected NASA geophysicist."

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=12060.0

"Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh," warns Phil Chapman writing in The Australian. Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

Sorry, but I think anyone who has done what he has accomplished has at least my respect and probably the respect of many other people.  But then again just another example of anyone who disagrees with GW/CC is called a heretic and shouted down.

Dr. Philip Chapman was born in Melbourne, Australia. He learned to fly during National Service with the RAAF, while he was an undergraduate in physics at Sydney University. After graduation, he spent the International Geophysical Year as an auroral physicist with the Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition to Mawson, Antarctica. His research earned him the British Polar Medal. After 15 months in Antarctica, Dr. Chapman moved to Boston, where he earned a masters degree in aeronautics and astronautics and a doctorate in physics from MIT. He was then selected by NASA and was the first foreign-born astronaut. He was Mission Scientist for Apollo 14, organizing the scientific training of the crew, coordinating lunar experiments and managing the interface between the scientific team and the crew on the Moon. After that mission, he served as Chairman of the Editorial Board for the Apollo 14 Preliminary Science Report. Dr. Chapman left NASA to work in industry, where he led many research projects in space science and technology. Principal areas of engineering interest included (1) launch vehicles powered by ground-based lasers and (2) solar power satellites as an inexhaustible source of clean energy for terrestrial consumers. He was Chief Scientist of Rotary Rocket Company, developing an innovative, economical manned launch vehicle and he is now the CTO for t/Space, helping to create human spaceflight He was also a former President of the L5 Society (now the National Space Society), and is a current member of the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy.