Debating on global warming when it comes to a republican?

"It's is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

First, I would never call anything that occurs on Bill Maher, or nearly any media outlet for that matter, as debate. A debate includes a set a decorum and the ability to respond to your debatees points and counterpoints in a full and complete manner as reasonably possible. In other words, there some resemblence of a 1-2-1-2-1-2 pattern of discussion between the debatees. Everytime I have watched Maher it is usually something along a 1-3-2-3 other 2, back to 3, then maybe 1 again. Where 1 is his conservative/republican guest, 3 is Maher himself, which is usually some smarmy response, or commonly the eliquent "Don't be stupid!", and then a easy transittion to the 2 in which the Maher agreeing guest will post his position, which many times doesn't even respond to the point of 1, (but he doesn't have to since Maher so effectively disarmed 1 wth his wit) - met with some applause and laugher, responded to by another 2 (usually a comic or actor) with another smamy response. So if there is time, or even and opportunity for 1 to respond, it seems out of context with the discussion and environment in the studio - now they are just a deer in the headlights. It's just not Maher, radio is just as bad when people call in where it is just 1-2 with lots of pontification and on to the next caller. Look, I like Maher, his new rules are hysterical, he's a gifter comic - but it's just that. And what goes on in his show (and many others) is not true intellectual debate. Degrasse sounded like any climate scientist that simply stated his case. Lutz was put in a no win situation, but would not cowtail. Do I care what Lutz has to say on global warming? No. Should you? I don't think so. People care because they think his skeptisim in AGW afftected his decision at GM and other companies, when in fact this could no be ftrther from the truth. Lutz sole purpose was to see that his company produced cars that met societal needs AND matched what consumers wanted. Arguably, he did this better than anyone in as least N. America over the last 30 years, and many Americans have him to thank for their jobs and livelihood.

It is a scientific conclusion, and to date predictions have not panned out, claiming that they are better now at predictions so we better listen up isn't a very convincing argument, so I'm neither impressed with failed conclusions nor predictions. There is no scientific basis to believe warmer means worse weather, we need to get back to the 280 ppm when the climate was more stable? How much more stable was it, how many less tornadoes are we going to have, how much less severe can I expect thunderstorms to be, will my insurance rates go down because I'm driving a prius?

Our ability to observe and document more and more information on our physical world does not mean more of it is happening. When a population jumps from 1 billion to over 7 billion people in the span of a few centuries the impact bad weather has on us is going to be larger. Yet amazingly the impact today is less devastating even though things are getting more severe? Oh, but Moe, it's far worse in underdeveloped countries. For what reason, well it's not because the weather is actually changing, it's because they have not industrialized and utilized what the rest of the world has figured out improves human existence exponentially. The ability to use energy to do vast amounts of work is not responsible for warmer weather and warmer weather is not causing more tornadoes, worse hurricanes or more hurricanes or the plethora of ambiguous predictions you believe because you saw bad weather or people living on a flood plain getting flooded on the evening news.

Congrats on proving that the last decade is the warmest on record and that it has been getting warmer over the last 50 years ... now ... some 125k years ago http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleo... it was even warmer! Now, what's really amazing is if you take a close look at the graph, its a 20 degree variance C. Thus, hold off on the end of the world ... lets ride it out.

Unfortunately it's becoming another litmus test on whether you're a Republican or a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only), so many Republicans have had to backpedal about their belief in AGW. That's why so many scientists are finding it hard to remain in the party. Among the Republican presidential candidates only a couple were brave enough to stand up to party group-think and assert that they believe in AGW, Jon Hunstman and Gary Johnson. Huntman's candidacy went nowhere, and Johnson is now the Libertarian candidate for president. It's apparently the goal of Republican Party to drive any person of intelligence out of the party.

Lutz just looks stupid. I feel embarrassed for him.

McBun, being a republican should not mean rejecting facts and ignoring science, but that seems to be the requirement now days. Ronald Regan start a major research push related to climate change, but now the GOP extremist in the base REQUIRES that any presidential candidate ignore all the science in order to be nominated.

Yep. It is pretty tough to debate someone that doesn't completely agree with everything you think, particularly when your arguments aren't that convincing.

What, in the Name of God, has global warming got to do with Republicanism?

Sorry for answering you with question? I am a Republican, and proud of that, but I didn't cause Global warming!!!

Taking scientific advice on Global Warming from an auto industry executive is like taking diet advice from Coca Cola's CEO.

Yup! Everyone has a right to their own opinion. With regards to global warming, the republicans think that they have the right to their own facts.

Moe

<It is a scientific conclusion, and to date predictions have not panned out,>

What predictions haven't panned out?