So, a 2-term vice president thinks that after losing a close presidential election, with a controversial vote in one state, he can come back and win the presidency, even after being out of public office for 8 years?

But enough about Richard Nixon.

I must take the contrarian view and figure they haven't got a snowball's chance in heck of pulling it off

Mark, as the last election showed, your powers of predicting the future aren't all that great. (You know the lefties will pounce on that one.)

I also believe that Hillary has a very serious chance of pulling it off. When I admitted yesterday that I feared her, I wasn't kidding. I fear anyone who will shove socialism down all our throats.

Now, Gingrich isn't my favorite politician, but he's also one of the most brilliant men in public life today

Like Bill Clinton, his smarts didn't stop him from having an affair with a staffer. Granted that Newt didn't perjure himself about it, but with such Clintonian underlying behavior, he provided red meat for the "everybody does it" defense offered by Clinton's supporters. In National Review Online, Deroy Murdoch had an article explaining why he has a problem with Newt.

I laughed my behind off when GW used his power to place that recess appointment.No matter how flat on his back GW is he can still kick Kerry in his backside.

Gore won't run. He's said so a million times: he's happy now because he doesn't have to answer to public opinion (not too much, at least) and because he can concentrate on what he wants to concentrate on. But, if he does run, he's the best candidate in my opinion.

"I'm afraid that he's going to simply mop the floor with Kerry"

Yes he is. Then he going to take one of those floor scrubbing machines, (you know, the kind that are hard to control and pull you around), and strip the floor with him.

I'm sure Newt will bring some of that good expensive floor wax and buff poor Kerry to a gleaming shine.

All this hooey about global warming. Junk science. Go Newt!

I'm actually looking forward to a debate on this large of scale. Kerry vs. Gingrich. Gingrich has had some large errors in his time. But I think he's going to destroy Kerry. Gingrich is a very articulate guy, and an excellent idea generator. This will be fun to watch. It would've been more interesting to see Al Gore pitted agaisnt Gingrich though.

Junk science that just came out today...

The final IPCC report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution.

Negotiators pored over the 21-page draft meant to be a policy guide for governments. The summary pares down the full 1,500-page scientific assessment of the evidence of climate change so far and the impact it will have on the Earth's most vulnerable people and ecosystems.

More than 120 nations attended the meeting. Each word was approved by consensus, and any change had to be approved by the scientists who drew up that section of the report.

There was little doubt about the science, which was based on 29,000 sets of data, much of it collected in the past five years. "For the first time we are not just arm-waving with models," Martin Perry, who conducted the grueling negotiations, told reporters.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264469,00.html

The planet definitely has a fever. It must be trying to cool itself off with the icy temps we are having in the midwest.

Uh, didn't you idiots swear that GWB would beat Kerry in their debates? How'd that work out for you?

I am simply puzzled to find the advantage in the upcoming election of Republicans taking the Limbaugh and Hannity corporate environmental approach. I know why they do it. They are in big oil’s pockets.

Yes the spotted owl here and there can hold up progress, but I would think Christians would smite those who would destroy God’s creation. I would also tend to believe even fun loving NRA members want and need a clean environment to hunt and fish.

I challenge any of you who would log anywhere, drill any ecosystem, or piss in any stream to first take a drink out of the Colorado River and then go take a drink out of the Yantzee River in China. You wouldn’t even get the Yantzee River water to your lips. The smell alone would overwhelm you.

Kerry doesn't know what he is in for..he is acting way above his intelligence grade!!!!Newt could just destroy him. altho I don't think he'll totally turn the screws to the max....he'll be a gentleman!

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/rich2952/rich2952.pdf

There are indications that some components of the physical system may be recovering and returning to the recent climatological norms observed from
1950 to 1980. For instance, the pattern of near-surface temperature anomalies for 2000–2005 has been distinctly different from the patterns that characterized the second half of the twentieth century, exhibiting positive (warm) anomalies
over the entire Arctic region. Observations from the early spring of 2006 show a pattern more consistent with the two patterns that dominated the twentieth century, with well-defined regions of warm and cool anomalies. Ocean salinity
and temperature profiles taken at the North Pole and the Beaufort Gyre both indicate that since 2000 the dramatic shifts observed in the 1990s have relaxed toward the pre-1990 climatology. On the land, permafrost temperatures continued
to rise within most of the permafrost-affected areas but at a noticeably slower rate than in the 1990s. Changes in the active layer thickness (the relatively thin layer of ground between the surface and permafrost that undergoes
seasonal freezing and thawing) are inconsistent.

While some of the monitored sites show a slightly increasing trend in the thickness of the active layer, most do not.
There also appears to be a destabilization of several known relationships between climate indices and Arctic physical system characteristics. For example,during the period of satellite observations, starting in 1978, a strong correlation between the Arctic Oscillation index and sea ice conditions had been
observed. A positive AO, characterized by a cyclonic atmospheric circulation regime, creates conditions that favor a relatively low sea ice extent. This relationship was clearly evident during the strong positive AO pattern that persisted from 1989 to 1995. Since then, the annual averaged AO index has been exhibiting more neutral conditions, which should support a reversal or, at least, a deceleration in the overall rate of reduction in the extent of the ice cover.
Instead, 2002–2005 has been characterized by an unprecedented series of extreme ice extent minima.
The observations highlighted in the report and the mixed tendencies they reveal further illustrate the sensitivity and complexity of the Arctic physical environment.
They also support recommendations to maintain and expand efforts to establish a coordinated Arctic observation network, consistently documented
by diverse, international activities (e.g., ACIA, 2004, 2005; SEARCH, 2001, 2005; DAMOCLES, 2005). Long-term monitoring of key parameters, coupled
with detailed studies of specific processes, will improve the understanding of this region and enable the development of more accurate models and predictions of its future state. The incentive for supporting and achieving these
advancements is high, given the relevance of the physical conditions to other key elements of the Arctic environment and global climate system.

I think it's important that people are educated on all areas concerning global enviromental discussions and not just what one groups opinions are.

I also think that they should include that the enitre planatary system is warming up..

Scientists Debate Sun's Role in Global Warming
Science – Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun's activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.

You're assuming Newt won't be doing this in Spanish, right?

So Neo, what do the GW believers intend to do about the problem? Maybe stop breathing, or stop driving those wonderful SUV's, or how about changing out their light bulbs to those cute little curly ones?

Personally, I plan to do nothing more than I am today. And I won't bitch if I find that after I die, that we were the cause. But until someone shows me exactly, not hypothetically, how it's happening....I don't believe it's so.

Other than enviro-images and some whacked out lunatic from Berkley scamming his fifteen minutes of fame on Keefy Doberman's show...I want real facts that are logical and presented from both sides of the argument.

In fact, at a less than 4% human contribution leads me to believe that it must be Keefy, Al Frankenstein, Hanoi Jane, Alfgore and Rosie O-spot that are the largest contributors. You know, their big mouths and all! Maybe if they'd STFU for a month or so, our climate would stabilize...eh?

Dear Navydad,

Are you sincere about being shown evidence or are you just railing against human causation of GW in an ideological manner?

If so what evidence do you want, please be very specific, and please not some rhetorical mention of absolute but a sincere question of evidence that would make you reconsider.

Because the evidence you ask for may very well already exist.

Neo, there is no doubt that the climate is changing. Whether we can do anything about it is a whole different story. Firstly, only a Philistine would assume that humans were the main cause of GW considering the same scientists that claim GW also state that humans contribute less than 4% of total CO2. The numbers simply don't add up. Secondly, and most important, China is the wild west when it comes to CO2 emissions. There are no regulatory agencies in China and until they come on board to help prevent global contamination, we're all screwed...period.

I spent time there recently and found the country and the people to be dirty, un-concerned about the environment and unwilling to change to satisfy the world's need for environmental control.

Neo, let's put GW into perspective. China has 1.5billion (with a "B") people that are just now getting a taste of "the good life", if they want to call it that, and in no way, shape or form do they desire to change their polluting ways to save Ma earth...because frankly, they don't care.

As an engineer, I witnessed, first hand just how little they care, with over 300million non-regulated vehicles on their roads every day. I also saw coal fired power plants being built, without air scrubbers. OH, did I tell you about the sanitary disposal....that's right...most lead to the rivers and oceans. So, to bloviate over GW at this point seems a bit like trying to convince you that there is a global war on terror.

Navydad,
I'm confused are you saying you don't believe we are causing GW or that its not possible to do anything about it?

I'm not sure where you are getting those CO2 numbers but

.........Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 379 ppm in 2005 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 2005 State of the Climate Report, a 35 percent increase. Almost all of the increase is due to human activities .............
NOAA’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI), which tracks changes in radiative forcing from greenhouse gases over time, shows that radiative forcing from greenhouse gases has increased 21.5% since 1990 as of 2006. Much of the increase (63%) has resulted from the contribution of CO2. The contribution to radiative forcing by CH4 and CFCs has been nearly constant or declining, respectively, in recent years.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html

As far as China and the rest of the world goes. Right now the US is the big polluter, nothing will be done if we don't start it. Maybe something can be done there are plenty of proposals out there and new ones are popping up

Neo, it's late and I'll get back tomorrow, but before we get into a long winded argument over the specifics, please do a little research on China first and believe me, all the arguing in the world will not change how the Chinese live their lives, nor will we have one ioda of impact on whether or not they comply with the necesary GW related action items.

I'll check out the numbers you've posted and get back later.

BTW, I'm saying that I'm not convinced we are affecting GW, and I'm also saying that with China, being as unwilling as they are to change, makes it almost moot to even consider.

In closing, you are 100% incorrect about the main polluter...it's China. I know this because they are not releasing any legitimate, defendable statistics or data that can be tracked. We're the only fools that do so.

Neo, one question, if we humans are the main cause of global warming - why is it also happening on Mars? Is there a human colony there that we do not know about? Worried about global warming, look at that big yellow ball in the sky the next sunny day. Could we be wobbling closer to it, or is it having more sunspot activity? Could those be causes, since more than just good old Earth are warming in the area? And hasn't this sort of thing happened before?

Neo,

If there was even one thing "negotiated" in the report, then it might be lots of things, but it isn't science. You don't negotiate about fact...if you are a scientist and you have demonstrated something as true, then you simply say it no matter how much pressure is brought to bear....on the other hand, if you're selling a bunch of BS to keep yourself on the research grant gravey train, then you'll be more than willing to negotiate away your "facts" to those who cut the checks...

steve,

Ummm...President Bush beat Kerry in all three debates.

Bigfoot,

Yeah, they will...screw 'em, as it were. I got 2006 wrong, and I got 1992, 1996 and 1996 wrong...on the other hand, I got 1988, 1994, 2002 and 2004 right...I'm 4-4 in prognostications.

For 2008, we GOPers are up against it - no matter how we slice it, President Bush is not ragingly popular and that will be a drag, even if things in Iraq continue to improve (as I fully expect they will). On the other hand, the economy is strong, the House Democrats hold their majority by grace of "stealth liberals" in strongly GOP districts, Democrats are proving themselves to be weak on national security (which will be an important issue in 2008) and, of course, whomever the Democrats nominate will have to win at least onr State President Bush won twice. A rather tall order.

Supposing the GOP loses Iowa and New Mexico (which President Bush won in 2004 but lost in 2000), that would bring a prospective Democrat up to 264 electoral votes...in order to get the 6 more needed to ensure victory, the Democrat would need to win Kansas (ain't gonna happen) or Arkansas (ain't gonna happen) or Missisippi (ain't gonna happen) or Oklahoma (ain't gonna happen) or South Carolina (ain't gonna happen) or Alabama (ain't gonna happen) or Louisiana (ain't gonna happen) or Colorado (almost certainly won't happen) or Arizona (ain't gonna happen) or Tennessee (ain't gonna happen) or Indiana (ain't gonna happen) or Missouri (almost certainly won't happen) or Virginia (won't happen) ...when you get to VA, the Democrats have their first realistic shot...but the only other "twice Bush" State they have a chance in is Ohio. If the GOP holds both of them, then the Democrats chances of winning the White House in 2008 vanish. And, of course, if the Democrats don't reclaim Iowa and New Mexico, then their problem becomes even harder...and, of course, if they were to lose even one State that Kerry won in 2004, their task becomes next to impossible (and they only barely won Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and New Hampshire in 2004).

The political wind is set against us, but it would take a hurricane force gale against us next year for us to lose the White House.

steve,

Ummm...President Bush beat Kerry in all three debates.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 7, 2007 02:43 AM

Mark I think you need to go back an read some articles on this one. But unlike the Prez in this debate Newt will need to be checked for listening devices. Oh, what am I say let Newt with all his morals have a listening device. It wont make any difference.

I can picture it now Newt will be quoting some 77 year old dude, meterologist Gray, that will be dead by the time GW takes hold so why the hell does he care vs about 50 of the worlds leading climatologist.

KJ,

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

Mark,
Fine don't look at the "negociated" IPCC report (it is the least damning of scientific reports) Look here at the uncompromised reports ...
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://start.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0335.html

or maybe the Bush administration report..
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.html

do get back if those are unsatisfactory since there are plenty more around

Oops, looks like Kerry got to Gingrich. Here's what Gingrich said:
"My message I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere."

KERRY: And to it urgently — and now…

GINGRICH: And do it urgently. Yes.

If I can, let me explain partly why this is a very challenging thing to do if you’re a conservative. For most of the last 30 years, the environment has been a powerful emotional tool for bigger government and higher taxes. And therefore, if you’re a conservative, the minute you start hearing these arguments, you know what’s coming next: which is bigger government and higher taxes.

So even though it may be the right thing to do, you end up fighting it because you don’t want big government and higher taxes. And so you end up in these kinds of cycles. And part of the reason I was delighted to accept this invitation and I’m delighted to be here with Sen. Kerry is I think there has to be a if you will a “green conservatism” — there has to be a willingness to stand up and say alright here’s the right way to solve these as seen by our value system.