I don't buy it. I think there is only one reason that Newt did this. He is trying to buy the left's good will. He may even believe in the myth of Globaloney.

I think Newt is completely wrong on this one. Rush is right. When Newt appears with Pelosi, his subtleties are not heard. He is broadcasting that he agrees 100% with the globaloney Nazis.... even if he doesn't. He has given them the victory of setting the agenda. His weak protests from the back of the room will be ignored once he's seemed to have accepted their argument.

I am disappointed in Newt here.

I disagree fundamentally with Rush on this question because I believe we have a good case to make.

Which is...?

We made it last year in contract with the earth.

I don't know what that means. 

Not anymore, she isn't.

Once again, the inept republicans have assisted the left in gaining another unearned victory.

What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008

Speaker Ginrich is naive to think that the leftists are not using his collaboration with Pelosi as anything but ongoing and future propaganda to further the leftist political goals surrounding the goofy idea that man is responsible for global warming. 

Speaker Ginrich has enough political and media clout to get his ideas across without resorting to this collaboration. 

One thing that always bugs me about our conservative politicians is that they seem to have to praise the leftist whenever there is some controversy between us and them.  Speaker Ginrich does this in the video excerpt.  Stop it already.  They hardly need coddling. 

"Newt Gingrich appearing alongside current Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a global warming ad"

There is a debate as to whether there is actually now any global warming at all, then there is a MAJOR debate about if there is in fact global warming, IF it is man made.

To appear with Ms Pelosi, Newt accepts the premise of global warming and SEEMS to accept the premise of man-made global warming. If he was promoting pollution control he sure picked a strange way(and words) to do it

VOTE REPUBLICAN

"I believe in, like, the future, because-- uh, it's like, not happened yet, so it's like this weird floating future thing, and it's really exciting, and the children, I believe in them too, because like, well the children are the future .. whatever..."
Newt Gingrich, Age 59 and 7/8s.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

Newtie, you belicve climate change is our fault and probably that carbon credits are the way to go, along with hybrid this and "green conservative" BS there. You are a liberal. You and McCain can go off and frolic in the damned tulips together. Your book? I burned it and released CO2 into the atmosphere. Go to hell.

You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.

Maybe next Newt can appear in an ad with Rosie O'Donnnel condemning President Bush for attacking America on 9/11 so Conservatives can sit at the table of ideas when discussing how to solve the problem of global terrorism.

Seriously, what a stupid, stupid excuse from such an intelligent man.  

What a disgusting disappointment…good by Newt.

Great points and observations, but almost everybody is trying to "baby" Newt and give him the "benefit of the doubt", even those who are critical.

Whatever he wants to do personally to minister to radical liberals is fine with me, but he is sabotaging a productive way of life by his "let's not argue" act, and to what end?

I am sad to say I don't believe he deserves it (benefit of doubt). Does he love the spotlight (already noted)?  Does he hunger for power or prestige?  Maybe he has already started believing his own press, both that of the MSM and his own creation.

Can a Ph.D in Modern European History not know what his opponents are like? Can he not know that they lie without compunction and that their goal is our subjection?

The left is just going to continue promoting the big lie of Man-made Global Warming everywhere possible as if no one has challenged them, and in truth, too few people in positions of leadership and influence have done so.

Newt has obviously lost his taste for standing up for what is right. George Bush has just disappeared when it comes to leadership on any issue other than prosecution of the Iraq war (and thank God for that) and some high-profile issues of budget.

Conservative talk show hosts, including Rush, Sean, Glenn, Mark, and other internet news and blog sites, are carrying the banner almost alone. They have substantially educated those who want to know the truth, but there appear to be few on the political scene in a position of influence who will forcefully contradict those who are pretending to have already fashioned the Emperor's New Clothes "out of whole cloth", as the saying goes.

The clearest voice debunking Global Warming that I know of, in a position of leadership, is Vaclav Klaus (here and here), the current President of the Czechoslovakian Republic. Needless to say, he gets little press coverage here. He has lived Modern European History and knows where it has lead and is leading.  Here's hoping he is joined by a flood of influential voices before too long (and that they will get accurate and extensive coverage).

There is NO "anthropogenic" Global Warming. NONE.

Newtered By ManBearPig & Co.

Is just wrong. It's a hoax in my opinion, and no one loves money more than government.

Is "global warming" happening. Maybe.

Is "man-made global warming" happening. Less than maybe.

One thing is for sure. Work to being able to afford "carbon offsets" people, or you're asses are going to be cleaned out by the Feds, a la "Contract With Earth/Gaia Worship" in the next decade.

Coal, clean burning or not, comes from a mountain. These libs, and "conservatives" don't want coal or clean-coal technology, what they're digging for is the mountain to fall on them. That's what you get when you plumb the depths of common men's and women's patience long enough.

I for one cannot afford "carbon offsets". Nor do I intend on purchasing any should a sudden windfall come my way. I'll tell you something, if the Feds keep this burn your food, carbon offset, make the filthy rich richer, tax the worker, and employer more, change a lightbulb or drive a "hybrid" for Mother Earth Energy policy, the only carbon they'll have to be concerned about is the soot from a sacked DC.

Patience like oil is not limitless.

Chivalry Is Not Dead

"And I don't think standing offstage and yelling no is a strategy."

I am insulted by this statement, as all should be who refuse to kneel at the AGW alter. No sir, Mr. Gingrich, I'm not going to genuflect to the almighty Algore and his snake oil marketing, and neither should you! I'm threw with this guy!

There is no doubt that we can use our natural resources and protect the environment at the same time, and have it be cost effective and beneficial to consumers.

BUT, the mistake Newt is making is in accepting the false premises of the Left, and sidling up to them. All that does is give them credibility they don't deserve, which makes it more difficult to get the right solutions enacted.

We don't need the Left to solve energy/environment issues, in fact, they are the problem. So why join them?

Sorry Newt, I'm not buying your excuses - or your book.

There are still millions of true conservatives left in this nation. They are being completely ignored. Gingrich, McCain, et.al. have given into the left. They no longer stand for real solutions, based on reality. Nonetheless, we are correct in what we say. For example, drilling in our own backyard, continuing to fight the terrorists, stopping government handouts, bringing back some standards in the schools, stopping or at least limiting abortions, stopping the illegals from living here, lowering taxes, etc. Look at this "campaign"; it's a freaking joke, a schoolboard election, a barroom brawl. Conservatism is the answer. Instead we veer to the left to enrich the few, like Gingrich, Pelosi, the MSM, Algore, the Congress, etc. "The masses are asses" and they know it. The average America can count himself as one of the many lambs to slaughter. Sad.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Newt's argument is disingenuous poppycock.

He said in the "O'Reilly" clip that conservatives standing off-stage shouting "no!" on environmental issues is not a strategy. This is an unfair caricature of conservative positions on environmental issues and is unworthy of the former Speaker of the House. Conservatives can promote their own perspectives on environmental issues in venues of their own choosing without collaborating with the enemy, as Newt is doing. By appearing in an ad with Nancy Pelosi (for Al Gore's group the Alliance for Climate Protection), Newt is conceding the underlying premises of arguments advanced by Gore's group and the other hard-left enviro crazies.

Newt is effectively admitting the truth of the most spectacular fantasies of the enviro-left, i.e., that the environment is in crisis, that humans are to blame, and that humans --especially Americans-- are going to have to suffer in order for the environment to be cleaned up.

Newt's in this for Newt. He's not being straight with conservatives and he should be ashamed of himself.

—Matthew Vadum is Editor of Organization Trends and Foundation Watch, two monthly newsletters published by Capital Research Center

About six weeks ago I heard Newt being interviewed by Sean Hannity and I knew then he was shifting to the left. He believes that libs wil inevitably get their way and doesn't want to be stuck in the "kiddie pool" with Limbaugh and Coulter.

Us conservies might as well give it up and get used to expensive gas and power rations. With Gingrich, McCain, Schwarzeneggar, Bloomberg, and Giuliani all going along with this, we've no one to speak for us except talk radio.

Washington Post:  What is the biggest environmental threat that the U.S. faces?

Newt Gingrich:   I think the biggest environmental threat to the U.S. is an energy strategy that is bad for the environment, economy and national security. It relies on petroleum as the primary source of transportation. That increases carbon loading of the atmosphere, sends dollars overseas and places the U.S. economy at risk to Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Russia. In terms of quality of life I'm as concerned about biodiversity as about global warming, and the strategies for both of those help both problems, because reforestation and other tactics benefit carbon sequestration and reverse the spread of deserts -- there are many more square miles today than their were 40 years ago. The right kind of strategy for reclaiming marginal land is both good for carbon, good for biodiversity and improves the quality of life. If you look at Israel and South Korea and you look at how much they have improved their environment in the past 50 years, it's startling the difference that reforestation has made compared with their neighbors.

This is a conservative today?

I don't think so!

Rather than assuming NG is becoming a liberal because he's smart / clever enough to see which side of the bread is getting buttered, it might make more sense to consider that he's smart enough, and has the critical thinking skills to analyze the scientific data and make an informed decision based on the evidence.

Bush rhetoric on energy strays from the facts (AP report on recent Bush press conference)

IPCC- Summary for Policy Makers - Physical Science Basis

The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change (CSIS)

"Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none." Mark Hoofnagle Denialism Blog

• cranks,
• Conspiracy
•  Selectivity (Cherry Picking)
•  Fake Experts
•  Moving Goalposts
• Fallacies of Logic

"The warming that has already occurred, the positive feedbacks that have been set in motion, and the additional warming in the pipeline together have brought us to the precipice of a planetary tipping point." Hansen Tipping Point

Scientists listed as 'co-authors' of a Heartland report demanding their names be taken off the list.  (DeSmogBlog)