There is no doubt this one email was sent by the man styled in an earlier media report as Newt’s co-author– just as he sent the original email recruiting the TTU professor and erstwhile Newt-book contributor Hayhoe, according to an interview she gave the LA Times several weeks ago, which is what let the cat out of the bag.
On its face, Newt’s insistence seems implausible, that his book on environment policy of course doesn’t include a “climate” chapter — not now that he’s been apprised that it did! — what with it being just the movement’s biggest issue. And the one on which Newt assumed the highest profile in recent years.
As Ms. Hayhoe is a bit of an evangelist on the issue, insisting that Christian stewardship compels you to accept the warmist claims and agenda, we wanted to see what about this commercial (slash political) venture she had done on taxpayer time and/or resources.
As our request winded its way through TTU, Prof. Hayhoe was apparently dismayed to learn that Newt had dumped her, via the media by way of a possible Iowa caucus voter concerned that Gingrich was not fully cured of his warming moonbattery. Couch-time with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) touting the wonders of government ministration of the weather will raise such suspicions.
I have followed up with TTU requesting clarification of their facially questionable redactions, which by law they had to run past the state’s attorney general though their response’s language reflects that that may not in fact have been done.
Among more obvious warts is the withholding of what the “ethanol” fire was that Dr. Maple was supposedly pre-occupied with addressing. Was it coverage of Newt’s prior lobbyin…er, service as an historian? But, to qualify for the exemption, the information’s release must pose a threat of substantial competitive harm to him, and he was director of the Palm Beach Zoo; also, why is the book’s “new” focus so secret, given that publishing houses spend a fortune promoting yet-to-be-published books. Don’t tell me it’s because it was “climate” as late as the date Newt decided to tell an Iowa voter he knew nussing!
Regardless, the one email reads, as provided to us, as follows:
From: “Terry L. Maple”
Date: 7 December 2011 16:00:03 CST
To: “Hayhoe, Katharine”
I just talked to the reporter that talked !o you about Newt. I’m sorry that it has been so long since we communicated but I’ve been swamped with revisions based on things like the Japanese nuclear accident, issues with ethanol [REDACTED] and Newt’s availability since he is now so immersed in the campaign. our editor has been leaning on me to get these revisions together. I don’t contemplate any big changes to your submission, I just need to get the transitional material together for [REDACTED] to review. I’m hoping to get everything resolved by [REDACTED] so the book can get into some orderly production but don’t hold me to that schedule. Of course, you probably have some updated material and you are welcome to make changes. The title has changed a little; it is now “[REDACTED]” and the emphasis is on the [REDACTED]. When I have the revised chapter sequences I’ll send you an outline so you can see how it all fits together but I need for [REDACTED] (our editor) and for [REDACTED] to approve all of it before I can distribute it to the chaper authors. [REDACTED] doesn’t have the book lined up for production yet so there is a way to go before we get to any pre- production publicity. As I told REP, if he becomes president we will see what a green conservative can do. It will be very interesting to see how this different approach work to to advance a new kind of environmental agenda. FYI my retirement as CEO of the palm Beach Zoo gives me a lot more time to work on this project. Thanks again for your patience.
Terry L. Maple, Ph.D.
Given in part that Prof. Hayhoe has felt comfortable sharing such emails with, for example, the LA Times, I also now am seeking prior communications, from when she was engaged (using taxpayer resources, it seems) to write the now-abandoned “climate” chapter in a commercial cum political effort. Those should shed a little more light on taxpayer involvement in the project while also informing judgment on the less than near-fetched notion, quickly propagated by Newt upon questioning, that he did not know about or anticipate such shocking content.
Those will not likely be in hand by the time of all coming public policy debates in which Mr. Gingrich participates, but hopefully at some point he can explain, finally, what he had originally planned to set forth about the global warming agenda in this book, so “we will see what a green conservative can do…to advance a new kind of environmental agenda”, which plan apparently began in earnest Tuesday night in Iowa. But wasn’t to be published until after the election.
This is an important issue on which Americans turn to policy leaders for insight. So far, all Mr. Gingrich has done is create confusion about what he knew and when he knew it about a taxpayer servant contributing to his commercial, maybe in part political, venture.