A great answer, hands down

Byline: | Category: 2008 Presidential Election, Environment | Posted at: Thursday, 27 December 2007

Courtesy of Don Surber we learn Fred Thompson’s answer to Nurse Ratched’s ill-timed question:

We don’t know the extent to which it’s warming. We don’t know whether or not it’s part of a cycle. We’ve had cooling periods in our country. We don’t know the extent to which man-made causes are contributing to it. We don’t know what the long-term effect of it is going to be and what we can do about it. . . Before we start rushing off and having United Nations countries, you know, big as a postage stamp telling us what to do and what we must do and so forth, let’s double-down and make sure we understand the ramifications and the significance of what we know and let’s improve on what we don’t know.

Spoken like a true skeptic*.

*And it should be remembered that skepticism, as Nobel Prize winner Al Gore apparently never learned, is one of the Three Central Components to Scientific and Critical Thinking.

Share this post:

6 Responses to “A great answer, hands down”

  1. Tony Iovino Says:

    I don’t care if global warming is real or not, or if it’s caused by humans or not. As a conservative, i want to see our dependence on foreign oil end. I’m tired of providing the mullahs, and the Saudi’s and the Chavez’ of the world with funding to attack us. And to make us so vulnerable we have to send our brave soldiers into harms way in places like the Middle East.

    We should have solar panel on every roof, nuclear power plants, a prohibitive tax on gas-guzzling SUV’s and a massive national effort to use our technology to make us more efficient. If it happens to cut down CO2, great–but who cares? I just want to end the $$ flow out.

  2. bob Says:

    Tony,
    You raise a good point. There are many reasons to conserve energy and to find alternative fuel sources. That the environmental movement has pinned its entire rationale on global warming is ludicrous. There is a very real possibility that GW will be discounted and quickly forgotten within just a few years. Sadly, if it goes away so too will the only accepted justification for weaning America from oil whose revenues make possible the destabilizing regimes in the Middle East.

    This is an area of failure for President Bush. I remember arguing to a colleague just a few days after 9-11 that three things were going to happen: We would build nuclear power plants again, we would immediately drill ANWR, and we would immediately raise CAFE standards. I was wrong on all three counts. I’m as small government, laissez-faire capitalist as they come, but getting America off of our oil diet should have been a national defense priority starting September 12th. We’ve lost six years arguing about global warming instead.

  3. BobKrumm.com » The only candidate with an Energy Security policy Says:

    [...] a response to a commenter on an earlier thread I bemoaned the fact that the biggest rationale offered for reducing American oil consumption is [...]

  4. George Rand Says:

    Bob and Tony-I think you both ignore,at great peril to our country, Ronald Reagan’s caveat that government is not the solution; it’s the problem. Let the market decide what’s the most efficient way to get our energy–it’s far smarter than you or Hillary or Al or Barack!

  5. bob Says:

    George, In a perfect world I would agree with you that energy is an economic issue. But this is not a perfect world, and energy is first and foremost a national security issue. We need to get off of foreign oil.

  6. Sean Braisted Says:

    [S]kepticism, as Nobel Prize winner Al Gore apparently never learned, is one of the Three Central Components to Scientific and Critical Thinking.

    No doubt…too bad there wasn’t more skepticism and critical thinking going on back in 2002/2003.

    I’m as small government, laissez-faire capitalist as they come, but getting America off of our oil diet should have been a national defense priority starting September 12th.

    I tend to agree, which is why we ought to consider having a more nationalized energy program. While I know the cool thing to do is blame enviornmentalists for the lack of oil refineries and nuclear power plants, the truth is that they are extremely expensive and the potential profits don’t kick in for 20-30 years…which in the energy world could mean that their particular facilities could be obsolete by the time the profits are supposed to kick in.

    Perhaps the Federal Government should consider building our own Nuclear Power plants (the reason why France has so many) and put the Navy or DOE in charge of their operation. I know the Republican tendency will be to throw tax dollars at private corporations to subsidize their profits, but I see no real reason why the Government couldn’t just cut out the middle man on something like this.