Accepting the premise that climate change is man-made is accepting a false premise that undermines our most fundamental beliefs, and therefore our most fundamental argument for a conservative victory. Evidence shows that the climate is changing, but not according to anything man has done. There are cycles to all of these natural processes - in the past 100 years, we’ve been through at least two warming cycles and two cooling cycles. Climate change was happening long before the industrial revolution, so it’s laughable to think that we any noticeable effect on things.

Ask yourself this: why is it that pretty much every effort to ’save’ the environment ends up hurting people? I’ve blogged about numerous examples of this - DDT in Africa, lighter cars cause more traffic deaths, etc. It’s because the premise is faulty.

There is no demonstrable evidence that carbon emissions, in particular, have a negative effect on the environment. In fact, I believe I read recently that there is a pending lawsuit against Al Gore and his carbon credit company for defrauding people - they accept money in return for a service that isn’t proven to accomplish anything. I will be very interested in seeing the results of that lawsuit.

If we want to do anything to help the environment, we first need to reject the premise that government can fix anything, especially not through more regulation and taxation. Then, we need to unleash the free market, letting the American public decide how much they want to reward so-called ‘green’ measures. If things like hybrid cars and swirly light bulbs fly, great. If they don’t, that’s okay, too.

In the absence of evidence, we simply cannot roll over on the principle of the matter. This is the key problem, and one that neither you nor Gingrich seem to grasp.

Even if we accept the premise that climate change has a man-made component, the idea that simply trying to craft a slightly better form of massive government intervention somehow constitutes a noble effort is laughable. You can concede the premise of climate change without damaging your cause. You can even concede an anthropogenic component without giving up the fight. You cannot concede the need for government to “solve” the problem without opening the door for every leftist fantasy program imaginable. This is the same game plan that has been used by leftists for everything from poverty to eminent domain. We concede ground in increments while they concede nothing. Eventually, we’re arguing on their terms and the fight is all but over.

As for the “people demand government action” issue, all I can say is that convincing people of the proper course of action is our job. If everyone is clamoring for bureaucratic interference, then it’s the job of conservatives to explain, in coherent and compelling fashion, why that interference will eventually produce more harm than good. You don’t do that by sitting on a couch with Pelosi and sending people to Al Gore’s website. It’s a stupid strategy and someone with Newt’s experience should know better.

Finally, even if most people say what you say they do in the polls, those same polls don’t put it as a very important issue for most people. In addition, if most people said that we should have socialize medicine, would you then support socialized medicine?