Gingrich misleading voters about his views of man-made global warming?

Gingrich misleading voters about his views of man-made global warming?

“Mr. Gingrich, it is time for you to publicly admit that you still bitterly cling to a deeply held belief in man-made global warming fears,” says Climate Depot’s Marc Morano.


Climate Depot Editorial


 Gingrich is not now and never has been an “agnostic”
about man-made global warming claims.

It is crystal clear from his long public life that Gingrich
is and always has been a committed greenie and believer
in the Al Gore/Sen. John Kerry/IPCC vision of man-
made climate change.

This has been obvious since 1989, when Gingrich teamed up with Nancy Pelosi to co-sponsor a climate bill.

It has been obvious since his rejection of endangered species act reforms in the 1990s.

It has been obvious since he preemptively conceded a climate debate to Sen. Kerry in 2007; it has been obvious since his atrocious claims in his 2008 book; since his slamming of fellow Republican colleagues in 2008 for opposing environmental extremism; since he sat on a love seat with Pelosi in 2008; to his 2011 faith in the now horribly corrupted and political National Academy of Sciences; and finally to his selection of a professor who is a committed believer in man-made climate fears for a chapter in his new book.

Climate Depot urges Newt to come clean and admit he has been misleading GOP presidential primary voters in 2011 about his views of man-made global warming.

Mr. Gingrich, it is time for you to publicly admit that you still bitterly cling to a deeply held belief in man-made global warming fears.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/14291/Hayhoe-gets-the-heaveho-Gingrich-boots-warmist-profess or-from-new-book-after-Limbaugh-reads-Climate-Depot-report-on-radio-ndash-Newt-Kills-Chapt er-on-Climate

Thanks to Marc Morano for this link


10 thoughts on “Gingrich misleading voters about his views of man-made global warming?

  1. It continues to be a sad state of affairs indeed in the GOP nomination process. I’ve watched about 90% of the mostly lame debates, and have yet to hear anyone question any of the candidates on the incredibly important economic issue of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and cap and trade.

    So profoundly disappointing, especially when one considers the courage that Senator Inhofe (R-OK) has routinely displayed from Day 1 (when Marc Morano was on his staff) on what has been appropriately called by many, including John Coleman, WeatherChannel co-founder, the greatest scientific hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.

    Why doesn’t each candidate explicitly state his or her views on this subject, especially when the majority of all Americans Republicans and democrats alike) are now skeptics if not outright deniers?

  2. The American electorial process is facinating. It, the whole process, appears to be run on a cult (for want of a better word) of personality and manufactured popularity. Candidates seem to do U-turns on their basic platforms, their raison detres are very fluid. The advertising industry rakes in the dollars – and run off laughing all the way to the bank. Candidates fall all over themselves to pander to the media. We love watching this process happen every few years, as it is all very entertaining. But – at the end of the day – is the process the problem? Does America really get the President it deserves?

    Gingrich appears, from press reports, to me to be a highly manipulative, volitile and self serving individual. He uses fear to garner support for himself.

    Believe me, we love American elections, they are jaw droppingly good entertainment value.

    • Unfortunately, too many Americans are either just plain stupid or too lazy to do any research into the candidates. However, even though “you can’t fix stupid,” many of the lazy ones are waking up and taking a greater interest in what the candidates say and do. Sadly, the system is rigged so that only those with sufficient dollars will receive enough electoral votes to become President. Bribery takes cash and electronic voting machines are far too easy to manipulate. End result, we probably don’t get what we want even if when “we the people” choose wisely. Because … “money talks and BS walks.”

  3. Gingrich is a Neocon. On the same ‘team’ as Geo. Soros via the CFR. Neocons use the green movement, especially the civilization crushing AGW scam to further their cause toward power over everyone. Their unholy dream of one world government with themselves at the top using the UN to control the ‘little folk’ is coming like an avalanche. Maybe.

    • Primary Governance is accomplished through emphasis upon either reward or punishment with the opposing form being the secondary characteristic. In the United States we have traditionally relied upon reward as incentive and punishment as a way of dealing with those who seek reward through violence or theft. North Korea on the other hand uses punishment as the primary emphasis and reward as an incentive for individuals to maintain and promote the system of punishments.

      There are only two viable scenarios in which a “One World Government” is achievable and sustainable.

      1) A very few people rule top down with enough money and military backing to keep everyone else in poverty; A Global Serfdom.

      2.) We suddenly discover that, as a planet, we are competing economically with many other planets to sell our goods and services.

      In instance #1 global productivity drops to the lowest level necessary to sustain life since there is no competition between nations; due to the “oneness” necessary to avoid competitive factions which would again split the “ONE” into many parts. Likewise, due to disincentive, as was the case in the Soviet Union, people will begin to slack off and not work. This will force the “ONE” to impose penalties such as withholding food, prison camps, and death to motivate people to work. There will be very little cream to skim, and what there is will be skimmed by the “Elite” who constitute the “ONE.”

      Scenario #2 would work a bit better since we would be competing against other worlds to produce and sell goods and services. This in itself provides great incentive for the “ONE” to remain unified in the face of other unified worlds. Due to interplanetary competition, the “ONE” would then find it necessary to parcel out greater incentives to workers for increased production; since it has been abundantly demonstrated that using the ‘stick’ will achieve only so much, while the ‘carrot’ will produce much greater results. The most recent case in point being China, where they found it necessary to adopt some capitalistic measures to grow their economy in order to keep pace with the modern world.

      Furthermore, scenario #1 would have a relatively short life span; perhaps only as long as 100 years. This would be due to our natural desires such as the betterment of our offspring, greed, self interest, and the hunger for power. All of these factors and more would work themselves into various competitive factions which would ultimately split the “ONE” back into parts. These factions would form autonomous governments and once again compete with one another.

      Scenario #2 could possibly maintain itself indefinitely. This is due primarily to our overriding need to present a unified front to any and all other worldly competitors. The fear would be great that to do otherwise would allow another world to gain a foothold upon our planet from which they would seize power from the remainder of our planet. Thus, our survival as a species would depend upon our solidarity as a world. Given that our instinct to survive is very strong, this scenario would be a potent incentive to remain unified.

      It is human nature to be competitive. Our competitiveness is the very thing which will give rise to the demise of a One world government as outlined in scenario #1. Likewise, it is our competitiveness that will give us the impetus to form and maintain a one world government as outlined in scenario #2.

      Since I see scant likelihood that we will soon be asked to compete in a galaxy wide network of inhabited planets, I think scenario #1 is the most likely to occur. However, our own human nature is the primary obstacle to the formation, or maintenance, of a “one world government” under present circumstances.

  4. The whole political system is rotten and not just in the US . Most politicians sold their soul. As long as it is WE THE BIG MONEY and not WE THE PEOPLE we are in very big trouble.The founding father knew this would happen.That is why Obama and Co are destroying that beautiful paper that’s called the Constitution.
    Fight for it. This could be the last year you can do it legaly!

  5. v. – Of course Americans get the president (and congress) we deserve! If we actually wanted someone who was going to represent us honestly and address our real issues, we could have that someone – but, apparently, that is not what we want. Seems stupid to me to make the country run by a popularity contest but I am not a member of any majority so I don’t get what I want in any election. I am glad I am old because I won’t have to see where they are taking our country for a whole lot longer.

  6. There is a reason his parents named him after a slimy Salamander….. LoL

    He would be better than ODumba, but just barely.

Comments are closed.