While I admire Newt Gingrich's obvious intelligence and skill as a debater and articulator of conservative philosophy, I - like many AT readers I'm sure -- was disgusted when he sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi complaining about "Climate Change." This thoughtless participation in promoting the Global Warming hoax was, in my mind, rank political opportunism of the worst kind, causing me to dismiss his presidential candidacy.

Let's be clear, the hoax of Global Warming is a premier issue of our time. It is (ostensibly) the root cause of Green Democrats'　 opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, drilling for shale gas in Ohio as well as the justification of their support for series of corrupt, taxpayer-funded "green energy" boondoggles like Solyndra and, most recently, Beacon Power.　 Even the Pentagon has been drawn in to the mix, misdirecting precious resources out of concern for "Global Warming":　 And let's not forget that Silicon Valley Venture Capital has been, until recently, misdirecting precious investment capital on a vast scale 　into Green Energy technology companies, most of which have been financial failures.　 

"Green tech investing　had been declining　even before Solyndra. Venture capitalists invested $891 million in 80 such start-ups in the third quarter, an 11 percent decline from $1 billion in 88 companies in the second quarter, according to the National Venture Capital Association."

The opportunity costs to the American economy have thus been considerable due to this unwarranted fixation on a pseudo-crisis that may or may not have consequences a hundred years hence.　 Meanwhile, 　the "U.N. prepares for urgent battle to extract $100 billion from U.S., developed countries", a position no doubt favored by Al Gore and leading Democrats.

The travesty is that both Democratic and Republican politicians are of like mind -- both thoughtless -- on this long-standing hoax.　 The voter has no choice between them on what is perhaps the premier national issue that is fundamentally affecting energy, national security and economic policies.　 At a time of unseasonably early snow storms in the Northeast, more Americans disbelieve the global warming hoax than are taken in by it:

"...the American public no longer believes that man is primarily responsible for global warming. In monthly Rasmussen polling over the past two years, an average of 46 percent of those polled said that natural causes are responsible for global warming, while an average of 38 percent answered that human activity is the cause." 

Mr. Gingrich admits in a recent interview with Sean Hannity:

"The ad with Nancy Pelosi was probably the dumbest thing I've done in recent years"

Mr. Gingrich could make amends and help his candidacy and help the nation by doing his homework so he can serve as a strong debater to refute the extreme Green Democratic positions concerning the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. As noted above, this is not an academic exercise but one fraught with profound implications for national policies.　

And it promises to be a winning formula.　 How do I know?　 Because every time there is an open debate on this subject, the "skeptic" position wins.　 See for example this 50-minute debate broadcast by National Public Radio over the motion: 'Global Warming Is Not a Crisis'.　

The "poll" of the audience is reported at time 50 minutes in the audio; the opinion in favor of the motion increased from 30% to 46% a full 16% swing as a result of the debate.　 The portion of the audience opposed to the motion decreased by a similar amount.　 My understanding is that this result happens with the audience whenever global warming is debated openly, and for this reason you will never see Al Gore or his minions agree to participate in an open debate over the merits of Global Warming alarmism.　 They prefer to hide behind the one-sided, monotonous drum-beat of Global Warming Alarmism provided by the biased mainstream media.

But Democratic politicians cannot forever avoid a debate on this subject.　 There are doubtless any number of informed scientists on the skeptics side, beginning with Lord Christopher Monckton, who would coach Mr. Gingrich on facts and figures necessary for a good debate performance.　 Therefore, Newt Gingrich could make amends and provide a profound service -- and a clear choice -- to the nation by championing the anti-AGW position in debates against the stalwart support of the AGW hoax that permeates the Democratic Party's policy platforms. So let us see a "Lincoln-Douglas" style debate on the Anthropogenic Global Warming "crisis" with Newt as the champion of sensibility i.e. "climate serenity". 　　Inevitable media coverage, despite the bias of the MSM, will serve to spread the word about the failing hoax - a national and international delusion. We must return to sensible domestic energy, national security, and pro-growth employment policies in order to achieve economic progress and a return to prosperity based on secure energy supplies provided by shale gas and oil mined in North America.