Newt Gingrich, environmentalist?

Unfortunately, everything Gingrich does must be interpreted in a political context. -- especially when he is testing the waters for a possible 08 Presidential bid.

The term "shameless politician" was invented with someone like him in mind.

After all, this is the guy who once wanted to abolish the US Geological Survey.

Newt has zero credibility in my book. None.

Ah, we hear from another noted scientist. Much as I like Mr. Gingrich, in this respect I hold him in about as much esteem as the inventor of the Internet Mr Gore. What a JOKE. What Gore, Gingrich, or 83% of Americans think of Global Warming is IRRELEVANT. Until two things are known with much greater certainty, they will remain irrelevant . Those two things are: Is global warming a fact?, Is the warming caused by human activity? The two are separate issues and have yet to be proven (to me anyway). As you commented on your blog. Why are we bringing politicians into the Environmental debate. Let's have some real science and factual conclusions before we start allowing the politicians cloud the issues. I have never seen any subject so misstated and misrepresented, even by scientists as the Global Warming issue. There are too many unanswered questions related to Global Warming and part two what is the source of the warming. Is it truly greenhouse gases or is it due in fact to some other factor. In today's world, there are a lot of studies looking at various microcosms of the issue but very few scientists actually looking at the "Big Picture". One: I have not yet seen any full fledged studies of the actual energy budget of the earth. If they exist in published form, I have not found them. (If you can point me to a url, it would be helpful). I want to see the research and make my own conclusions. Two: If the earth is truly warming, as indicated by the energy budget, rather than just moving the warm and cold places about, then what is the source of that warming. Is it really due to greenhouse gases - confirmed by the energy budget and spectroscopic studies, or is there another source of the warming related to increased insolation, orbital changes, changes in the location and quantity of reflecting and non-reflecting regions. The discussions I have seen on most blogs and even in Scientific American border on the religious. Of course the most often quoted are those noted scientists Al Gore and Dan Rather. And now we can add Newt. Let's lose the hype, panic, and irrational fear of the unknown and do some real science in the way science has always done it. Observe, hypothesize, experiment, re-evaluate, finally present a conclusion. This works so much better than to create a hypothesis and set out to prove it. This method will almost always succeed in a limited way but produces no new facts or science. Science has NO PLACE for political persuasion. If one cannot be objective then one does not belong in science. Seek employment elsewhere.

Pretty bizarre that the previous comments slander Newt while not even accurately understanding his positions on the environment. Most laughably, not a single one of them actually states anything factual about Gingrich, except that he's writing a book! Gee, good thing you could read the headline on this thread!

Anyway, following is what Gingrich has posted on his web site. A couple of the hate-spewing previous posters will be chagrined to know that they already agree with him. Now, ain't that galling and ironic?

"The United States should support substantial research into climate science, managing the response to climate change, and in developing new non-carbon energy systems. It is astounding to watch people blithely propose trillions of dollars in spending on a topic on which we have failed to spend modest amounts to better understand. To its credit the Bush administration has begun to increase funding on climate research but much more needs to be done. Furthermore, it is astounding to have people focus myopically on carbon as the sole source of climate change. The world’s climate has changed in the past with sudden speed and dramatic impact. Global warming may happen. On the other hand it is possible Europe will experience another ice age. The Norwegian politicians who worry much about global warming (the politically correct thing to do even in a cold country that would demonstrably benefit from a warmer climate) may suddenly find themselves migrating south if a new interim ice age were to happen. This point is politically incorrect but the history and science of climate change is far more complex and uncertain than the politically driven mass hysteria of scientists who sign on to ads about a topic for which they have no scientific proof."