Gingrich says climate bill will punish Americans

Apr 24, 2009 By DINA CAPPIELLO and H. JOSEF HEBERT , Associated Press Writer
FILE - In this May 14, 2008 file photo, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

(AP) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says a Democratic proposal to limit global warming pollution will "punish the American people" with higher energy costs and lost jobs. Gingrich appeared before a House subcommittee writing a broad energy and climate bill aimed at cutting greenhouse gases by 80 percent by mid-century.

Gingrich, a leading Republican voice who has indicated he may seek the presidency in 2012, criticized the Democrats' cap-and-trade climate proposal. He called it "an energy tax" that will increase Americans' cost of living and kill jobs.

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California accused Gingrich of trying to scare people into opposing action on . Waxman argued the bill is designed to contain energy cost increases.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says a Democratic proposal to limit global warming pollution will "punish the American people" with higher and lost jobs.

Gingrich appeared before a House subcommittee writing a broad energy and climate bill aimed at cutting by 80 percent by mid-century.

Gingrich, a leading Republican voice who has indicated he may seek the presidency in 2012, criticized the Democrats' cap-and-trade climate proposal. He called it "an energy tax" that will increase Americans' cost of living and kill jobs.

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California accused Gingrich of trying to scare people into opposing action on change. Waxman argued the bill is designed to contain cost increases.

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Explore further: Climate change and air pollution will combine to curb food supplies

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Warner: Climate change a national security issue

Apr 24, 2009

(AP) -- Former Vice President Al Gore, a leading voice on climate change, urged lawmakers Friday to overcome partisan differences and pass legislation to curb greenhouse gases.

Congress considers major global warming measure

Apr 19, 2009

(AP) -- The last time Congress passed major environmental laws, acid rain was destroying lakes and forests, polluted rivers were on fire and smog was choking people in some cities.

Poll: People want to battle climate change

Nov 05, 2007

A BBC poll indicated most people around the world said they would make personal sacrifices -- including higher energy bills -- to address climate change.

Recommended for you

US plans widespread seismic testing of sea floor

Jul 26, 2014

(AP)—The U.S. government is planning to use sound blasting to conduct research on the ocean floor along most of the East Coast, using technology similar to that which led to a court battle by environmentalists in New Jersey.

Fire ecology manipulation by California native cultures

Jul 26, 2014

Before the colonial era, 100,000s of people lived on the land now called California, and many of their cultures manipulated fire to control the availability of plants they used for food, fuel, tools, and ritual. Contemporary ...

User comments : 32

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

holoman
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2009
Gingrich,

the loon who wants to prevent progress on saving
mankind and our planet.

With new energy technology American can prosper.
omatumr
2.9 / 5 (16) Apr 24, 2009
I too generally oppose Gingrich.

But in this case, he is right.

Angular momentum changes in the Sun, induced by gravitational interactions with the orbiting planets, produce the solar cycles that control our climate - not the gaseous CO2 emissions that growing plants convert into oxygen, O2, and hydrocarbons.

You can see the Landscheidt solar cycles and angular momentum changes here:

http://landscheid...m-graph/

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/
Eky
2.6 / 5 (12) Apr 24, 2009
Seriously Omatumr?

I see that you are a Professor of Nuclear Chemistry so i would expect that you would have a little more insight into something as simple as the carbon cycle. And i would also expect that you understand a little something about optics and the green house effect. Seriously, angular momentum? What does that even mean to most people in the world? you've just provided more unsubstantiated fodder to all the ignorant people in the world that don't believe in human related global warming. Even the EPA is beginning to recognized co2 as a green house gas. I don't mean to be too harsh i did read some of your opinions on angular momentum's affect on sun spots and climate but its an academic red herring, of course the greenhouse effect is affected by the sun intensity but it doesn't end there its way more complex.

Maybe provide some data or any proof whatsoever that your Landscheidt solar cycle is relevant at all to the subject of climate change.

Velanarris
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 24, 2009
Seriously Omatumr?
I see that you are a Professor of Nuclear Chemistry so i would expect that you would have a little more insight into something as simple as the carbon cycle.
Ok, hold on here. You're very incorrectly assuming Anthropogenic Global Warming is proven, which it is not. It is hardly out of the realm of hypothesis.
And i would also expect that you understand a little something about optics and the green house effect. Seriously, angular momentum?
Well just as an FYI Understanding a bit about optics myself I realize that CO2's few absorption spectra are almost completely masked by the far more abundant greenhouse gas H2O. Furthering my understanding of optics was recognition of what a prism is and how it works, as well as understanding how the angle, and the velocity along that angle (angular momentum)will affect the prism, (our atmosphere).

What does that even mean to most people in the world? you've just provided more unsubstantiated fodder to all the ignorant people in the world that don't believe in human related global warming.
Oh boy, you didn't just drink the kool-aid, you poured the sugar.

Even the EPA is beginning to recognized co2 as a green house gas.
They never denied CO2 was a greenhouse gas.
I don't mean to be too harsh i did read some of your opinions on angular momentum's affect on sun spots and climate but its an academic red herring,
Ok, this is enough foolishness. You want to say the motion, including distance and angle in relation to the sun has zero effect on the climate, which is completely driven by the sun, of the planet. Unbelievable. CO2 produced since the industrial revolution until right now totals less than 1% of the troposphere.

of course the greenhouse effect is affected by the sun intensity but it doesn't end there its way more complex.
Yes, the climate is far more complex than the greenhouse effect or the carbon cycle.
Maybe provide some data or any proof whatsoever that your Landscheidt solar cycle is relevant at all to the subject of climate change.
Direct correlation to all known climate change events is quite sufficient for most scientists.
LuckyBrandon
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2009
velannaris-youve always got some good things to say brotha...i typically like your posts...and yes, he did pour a LOT of sugar....I bet this post gets many many comments on it now, as do many of the others were involved in (whether we agree or not on the subject)


This is a subject I am not qualified to speak highly on, but I do think the governments of the world are playing a little too much in the "human caused all of global warming" concept. From my understanding, we know that global warming and coll down is a natural process that occurs over and over again, including for millions/billions of years before mankind was even a twinkle in a cell's eye. If that statement is in fact true, then I would tend to think we are in a normal period of warming, that yes, we may have contributed too (well, most certainly did), but we probably sped it up by a whole 50th of a percentile is my thought.


Ok theres my can of worms...shoot it down guys :D
Noumenon
3 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2009
There is just too many other possible explanations for the 1*f change over the last 100 years, to justify spending trillions, damaging economies, and incorporating government into free capitalism. Gingrich is correctly no matter how much you dislike the man.

Hasn't the last seven years been cooling?


Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2009
Just 30 years ago, the consenus was for global cooling. What kind of science does a 180 in such a short relative time (?),.. one that hasn't prooven itself worthy of anything more than suspicion, much less justifying such sweeping incorporation of liberal government.



Even if this scam stumbled upon a truth, the problem will fix itself naturally, via unmolested capitalism; Once oil becomes more costly to extract (& it will
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2009
...
VOR
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2009
Gingrich is and idiot and an Azz. He's a social/political disaster area. But I can't comment so strongly on GW issue. We certainly ignore it at our own peril. And it's a good idea to reduce emissions in the mean time. -we can alwasy relax a bit should it be determined carbon's affect are less. But we should stop making a political argument about manmade vs natural climate change. It doesn't matter. We have to make a plan to intervene regardless of the causes. We learned to put roofs over our heads and wear coats in the winter. We had better learn to influence our climate beneficially or eventually it will cost us dearly.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2009
Gingrich is a brillant man, and I hope he runs for president in 2012.

Of course its going to be a political argument, because the proposed solution involves the form of government.



As I was trying to post above (edit problem), even if this scam stumbled upon a truth, the problem will fix itself naturally, via unmolested capitalism; Once oil becomes more costly to extract (& it will
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2009
... alternative energy sources will be able to compete. This is the way progress is made every time, not via ad-hoc government force. World government can't even solve ralatively simple problems like genecide, starvation, and wars, which aren't conjecture.
Velanarris
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2009
Gingrich certainly isn't an intelligent man, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Shootist
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2009
Do any of you even know Gingrich? I took three history courses from him in 75-76. He isn't brilliant in the sense that Freeman Dyson is brilliant but he is apparently more intelligent than a number of the posters here.



The only fact we can trust is that the planet has been both warmer and colder, and that in historical times.
GrayMouser
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2009
Just 30 years ago, the consenus was for global cooling. What kind of science does a 180 in such a short relative time (?),.. one that hasn't prooven itself worthy of anything more than suspicion, much less justifying such sweeping incorporation of liberal government.

I remember the ice age scare. Nobody then was screaming for the kinds of government powers and international wealth transference that we're seeing with the current AGW scare.
MikeB
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2009
True, Gray
That's when most of the commies were still in Russia...
superhuman
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2009
Well just as an FYI Understanding a bit about optics myself I realize that CO2's few absorption spectra are almost completely masked by the far more abundant greenhouse gas H2O.

It's not, here is a quote from Freeman Dyson (already mentioned above):
"The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger"


Furthering my understanding of optics was recognition of what a prism is and how it works, as well as understanding how the angle, and the velocity along that angle (angular momentum)will affect the prism, (our atmosphere).

Angular momentum won't affect the prism at all, there is no rotational motion involved in the prism effect, besides angular momentum is "not velocity along an angle", that would be angular velocity.
Velanarris
not rated yet Apr 27, 2009
Angular momentum won't affect the prism at all, there is no rotational motion involved in the prism effect, besides angular momentum is "not velocity along an angle", that would be angular velocity.
You're right, I've misspoke, however, the changing relationship between the atmosphere and the solar radiance as the orbit slightly changes would have a large affect upon the energy hitting the Earth.
QubitTamer
4.6 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2009
Just 30 years ago, the consenus was for global cooling. What kind of science does a 180 in such a short relative time (?),.. one that hasn't prooven itself worthy of anything more than suspicion, much less justifying such sweeping incorporation of liberal government.


I remember the ice age scare. Nobody then was screaming for the kinds of government powers and international wealth transference that we're seeing with the current AGW scare.


Greymouser i too am old enough to remember the big ice age scare.... due to polution from what? BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS... I also remember Sting telling everyone in 1986 that the entire Amazon rain forest would be clear-cut by 1995 and that O2 levels would drop by 30% or some such bull. None of this gloom and doom ever comes about because it's all medieval level witches and spells hysteria that the gullible and stupid fall for. In my youth i was one of those stupid and gullible... Then i got older and looked around and didn't see all of the catastrophe happening and started analyzing issues with scientific, empirical methodologies and lo-and-behold i realized i had been snookered by people who's only agenda was more government control of their citizens, not saving the earth.

Look it makes good sense not to pollute and to try and live in synch with nature. In most western industrialized countries we have that LUXURY. I would like to see all of the AGW hyperventilators spend a month in Mumbai or New Delhi or the slums of Brazil or any of the other 3rd world tragedies that i have been to and realize that the last thing on the minds of the people living there is the climate. You don't give a rats ass about the climate if you have to burn tire shards to cook your rancid rice so you don't starve to death...

However i do have to admit that the climate screechers back in the 70's may have been right after all, looks like the last 10 years of global cooling are heading us into a new ice age...
Damon
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2009
Stu Pedasso says Wha?
NeilFarbstein
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2009
So what if eveybody is punished for their stupid suport of myopic poltical hacks who denied the greenhouse effct was real until new orleans was inundated
with floods that destroyed it. The green people that warned everyone were derided and fired and shouted down and the high taxes thatare now necessray are the result of unheeded warnings and action that has come too late.
LuckyBrandon
3.8 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2009
Neil-the fact is, this is a normal process. New Orleans didnt go under due to human intervention, although many people did suffer due to lack of human intervention. If youre stupid enough toi stay in a place largely below sea level, you should expect to get wet from time to time. Lets be honest about it....

Global warming by humans did not cause the new orleans incident, the earth did. Blame it on who really deserves the blame, and that is mother nature.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2009
Global warming whether natural or anthropogenic had zero to do with the inundation of New Orleans.

New Orleans was a man made problem. Man made a city under sea level, in hurricane alley, on the flood plain of the Mississippi. That was the problem. Nature solved it.
LuckyBrandon
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2009
Velannaris-it wouldnt be fair to say that global warming had nothing to do with it. I DO agree the cause of new orleans is definitely oly because the french were stupid enough (oh gee, imagine that) to build a city under sea level, and for the decendents of america to keep it there is even more stupid (although they didnt have hte knowledge back then to know better, but we have no excuse now..especially after the tragedy there). We both know that global warming, natural or otherwise, has caused a verifiable increase in hurricanes/typhoons in the last 100 years or so.

That does not change the fact that you and I are in agreement on the fact, the problem is not global warming, its mans stupidity in keeping a city there, compounded by the failure to help our fellow humans when the time came for them to need help. We have the government to thank for both.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2009
That's false. Global warming would lessen storm strength by decreasing the disparity between the warm and cold zones that form storm systems.

Secondly, there is a net decrease in global cyclone activity. Check NOAA's site for exact info on it. You're not seeing more hurricanes, you're detecting hurricanes that would have gone undetected prior. We have more accurate means by which to detect cyclonic activity, that doesn't mean there are more hurricanes, and the data speaks to that.
GrayMouser
not rated yet May 03, 2009
It's not, here is a quote from Freeman Dyson (already mentioned above):

"The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger"

It is interesting that your quoting Dyson when he is opposed to AGW.
http://icecap.us/...n_dyson/
superhuman
5 / 5 (1) May 03, 2009
It is interesting that your quoting Dyson when he is opposed to AGW.

http://icecap.us/...n_dyson/


It depends on what you mean by "opposed to AGW", he does not deny that warming does happen (as many opponents) the quote is pretty clear on that, he is skeptical of our climate models and against overblowing the issue.

I completely agree with his position.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) May 03, 2009
It is interesting that your quoting Dyson when he is opposed to AGW.
http://icecap.us/...n_dyson/

It depends on what you mean by "opposed to AGW", he does not deny that warming does happen (as many opponents) the quote is pretty clear on that, he is skeptical of our climate models and against overblowing the issue.

I completely agree with his position.

Then you and I finally agree on something.
CWFlink
5 / 5 (1) May 06, 2009
It troubles me greatly that so many people who claim to be students of science overlook the primary lesson taught by every generation of scientific discovery:

scientists are human and make MANY, MANY mistakes.

The whole sweep of scientific history shows that we should believe NOTHING until it is proven over and over again by multiple indepenent observations and all other alternatives considered and ruled out.

Even in the relatively short history of "global warming" we've seen numerous examples of mistakes and misrepresentations of supposed "fact". I will not bother to recount them here.

Simple fact: the "information revolution" has made it possible for fools to invest BILLIONS in Ponzi schemes and claim "proven track records" justify their faith.

Consider the last DECADE! Has ANY of the so-called "experts" been correct with ANY of their predictions? WMDs in Iraq? Inability of the "surge" to work? Housing prices will always rise.... "they HAVE for 70 years... and now we have a population explosion!" ETC. ETC.

Get real. Get practical. Get humble. Get educated about human limitations and recognize that we'll make this world work ONLY by exploiting efficently what little we know "for sure". Wasting time on pipe dreams will kill us more surely that CO2.
NeilFarbstein
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2009
Neil-the fact is, this is a normal process. New Orleans didn't go under due to human intervention, although many people did suffer due to lack of human intervention. If you're stupid enough to stay in a place largely below sea level, you should expect to get wet from time to time. Lets be honest about it....















Global warming by humans did not cause the new Orleans incident, the earth did. Blame it on who really deserves the blame, and that is mother nature.








No, its not Brandon, its' the political hacks like you that deny the greenhouse effect is real and a real threat to mankind. "mother nature" did not perform as the army corps of engineers predicted in the early nineties despite warnings from scientists that the greenhouse effect would make "once in a century" storms much more likely to occur than that figure. right wing fanatics like you that deny the obvious and who don't care if it is repeated on ever larger scales are a real threat to everybody. Don't tell us mother nature is melting the polar ice caps or causing a huge increase in the damage from forest fires near San Diego and Los angeles and other cities.

Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2009
No, its not Brandon, its' the political hacks like you that deny the greenhouse effect is real and a real threat to mankind. "mother nature" did not perform as the army corps of engineers predicted in the early nineties despite warnings from scientists that the greenhouse effect would make "once in a century" storms much more likely to occur than that figure. right wing fanatics like you that deny the obvious and who don't care if it is repeated on ever larger scales are a real threat to everybody. Don't tell us mother nature is melting the polar ice caps or causing a huge increase in the damage from forest fires near San Diego and Los angeles and other cities.
You're wrong. Just flat out wrong, and now you're attempting to defend an indefensible position with ad hominem attacks....

Bravo, you're the new AGW poster child.
LuckyBrandon
5 / 5 (1) May 20, 2009
neil-i never said global warmining itself isnt real. but go sit down in front of some ice cores, or some rock cores, and you can see for yourself (if taught anyways) that this is a highly normal process for the earth.

velannaris-thanks for the defense brotha :)
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Jun 14, 2009
Gingrich, is right, unfortunately. This legislation will hurt--a lot. Before attacking me I suggest reading the legislation.

By the way, for those who keep using faulty reasoning in attacking sceptics by claiming that they are denying the existence of the greenhouse effect, I believe in the greenhouse effect. Were it not for the so-called greenhouse effect this planet would be a frozen wasteland. The Greenhouse effect occurs on all planets with an atmosphere, more especially those containing H2O vapor.

Do I believe, on the other hand, in Anthropogenic Global Warming? Not yet, for I have seen zero unfalsifiable evidence for it and have yet to see anything that cannot be explained by other things that are happening at the same time.

Do I believe that there has been a warming trend around the globe? Certainly. Do I believe man is responsible for it? Nope. Not yet. See above as to why.