Why would Obama not bring up climate change during the debate?

I don't it's a question of what his supporters think; it's the undecided - the floating voters who matter.

The truth or otherwise of AGW has nothing to do with politics, but acceptance of it does seem to be related to peoples political views; at least if Y/A is anything to go by.

Given that uncertainty, skepticism and denial of AGW seem to be found more on the right; also the relative closeness of the candidates, it shouldn't be surprising that both of them are avoiding the issue. There are a lot of votes at stake and both of them are aware of this. Regardless of their AGW position, their only consideration is how to win the election.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

Hi Mike I think both parties don't want to see the election turn into a referendum on carbon Tax . An election should be won and lost on a variety of topics not just one issue Here in Australia Howard won his elections on boat people ( refugees) and GST Tax He won both through the help of the media they promoted the man overboard issue The media played time and time again footage of a small child jumping from a leaky boat When in fact the child was thrown to a parent already in the water It wasn't pretty to watch peoples lives in great danger But to dramatise it to win a election by playing on peoples emotions to win votes to me isn't a good look . And then in the next election because the boat people lie went so well he decided to have a referendum on a GST tax before the election and the people voted in a landslide win for NO GST TAX and for those who have short memories HE stated that the people have spoken an Australia will have NO GST while ever he was leader and what did he do as soon as he was reelected introduce a GST TAX He just kept on lien to the Australian people. So I think the reason they are not talking about AGW is because they see the science is not settled on CO2 being the primary cause for climate change They know weather modification IS taking place around the world and they know the agenda There's an old saying LET SLEEPING DOGS LYE don't go poking it with a stick just to see what happens it mite bite you on the *** Just like the CO2 debate if you stick your neck out on CO2 issues then you could be left with egg on your face and neither party wants that. My opinion Mike Cheers

While currently, 67% of all Americans say there is solid evidence that the earth's average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades and with 65% of the independent voters thinking global warming is serious or somewhat serious issue. You would have expected him to bring it up.

I didn't watch the debate and did a quick search for the words "climate" and "warming" without any results.

The Christian Science Monitor described it well "In four years, climate change has gone from the elephant that blind men are trying to describe to the elephant in the room. No one wants to talk about it. With a few exceptions, voters don't ask. And presidential candidates don't tell."

Simple. The questions asked were not questions put forth by the candidates themselves. By the same token, why did not Romney mention that coal use, in this country, is falling because natural gas prices are so low and coal cannot economically compete with natural gas any more? Electricity producers are switching from coal to natural gas because natural gas has gotten so much cheaper to use. Why did Romney not bring up this fact during the debate? Simple. Romney and Obama did not get to choose the questions they were asked.

Nobody brought up ANYTHING substantive in the debate - from economic policies with real numbers, to the drug wars, to middle-east policy involving anything more concrete than how many wolf tickets to hand out. All we heard was a repeat of talking points and campaign speeches. Global warming is a real issue, of course it wasn't brought up.

I haven't watched any of the debates because I'd prefer to spend my time not being lied to.

Obama hasn't raised the issue because it's a political hot-potato when the economy is in the shittter. Romney hasn't raised the issue because it would be another hypocritical point Obama could bash him on.

Douche vs. Turd Sandwich.

I think I remember Obama bringing it up. It was mentioned briefly and certainly not focused on. It was something about clean fuels that won't cause global warming. Maybe it was a commercial I saw. Anyway your point is still valid. He didn't bring it up because I am sure he had polls that said it wasn't a winning issue. Still he has to gin up his base so even if it isn't a winning issue, I think he is a bit desparate now and it may still be an issue.

F&L, I too am a little frustrated by Romney not wanting to distance himself from Obama's foreign policy but I think he was simply trying to erase all of the negative advertising that Obama spent trying to paint Romney as a warmonger in Ohio and other key states. I too think Romney isn't so far off on AGW from Obama but I don't think Romney wants to use AGW to push his political agenda. For Obama it is a political expedient and tool to pander with.

Why would he? He is trying to get re-elected and that issue isn't going to help.

I think it's because most green initiatives hurt the economy and the economy is what people are worried about the most right now.

Climate change is dead as a public policy issue. We will probably live to regret this, although happily for you no matter how bad the effects of climate change are, you can just claim it's all natural variability and if anyone had tried to do anything it wouldn't have mattered anyway. It's kind of win-win for you, aside from the fact you and everyone else will have lost.

A good analogy would be an ostrich with its head in the sand. A lion comes long and eats it. You would argue that having its head in the sand didn't necessarily kill it because the lion might have eaten it anyway. We couldn't prove you wrong, although logically your position admits a certain amount of playing loose with causality.