For The First Time Since 1988 Global Warming Wasn’t Mentioned During A Presidential Debate


A sign, perhaps, that the global warming alarmists have lost?

This is the first time since 1988 that climate hasn’t been mentioned in the presidential debate cycle, Johnson of Climate Silence said in a post that provides partial transcripts to the contests. Back then, Republican vice presidential candidate Dan Quayle said, “the greenhouse effect is an important environmental issue.”

In 2008, Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) discussed efforts to reduce emissions in three debates, including in one presided over by last night’s moderator, Bob Schieffer. Their running mates also talked about it, with Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) touching on the dangers faced by her home state.

This year’s omissions make the prospects cloudy for climate action in the next four years, whether the nation is led by Obama or Romney.

What may be part of the problem (from the perspective of the greenies, anyway) is the fact that America’s carbon emissions have been declining significantly thanks in no small part to a shift from coal power to natural gas, something made possible by America’s fracking-fueled energy boom.

What may also be part of the problem is the utter collapse of the “green energy” industry under Obama. Whether we’re talking about solar power or wind power, boondoggles like Solyndra and others have proven to Americans that the government cannot simply wave its regulatory wand, and throw about subsidies and loans, and make green energy work. There’s a little matter of the free market to consider, and the truth about solar and wind is that they don’t work.

Rob Port is the editor of In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • The Whistler

    How many votes did McSame as Obama lose when he hissed “climate change” in the third debate?

  • mikemc1970

    Don’t worry the left has not and will not ever abandon human caused climate change. It’s just that recent data and scientific research is forcing the envio-socialists back to the drawing board in order to make up new reasons, that haven’t been refuted yet, we need to redistribute western wealth to the third world.

  • SigFan

    The greenies – like the Islamists – will never give up. They’ll just slink back into the darkness for a while and try to figure out their next line of attack.

    • Roy_Bean

      The greenies won’t give up but they have been abandoned by the marxists who saw it as an opportunity exploit fear of the unknown to get the masses to accept things that they normally wouldn’t. The greens are still there, the marxists have moved on.

    • $8194357

      They have UN AGENDA 21 working for them.

  • robert108

    Global Cooling/Global Warming caused by mankind is a myth. It’s time for us to wake up to reality.

    • $8194357

      Microwaveing the globe into plasma sheilds for decades…
      Man has reached his destructive Tower of Bable moment, IMO..

    • banjo kid

      It is strictly a method to extract money from your bank account .

  • Spidly Spinmore

    You have to love right wing science. It is like the war on Christmas, The Birther game, the death panel lie, and the shabang of right wing nonsense. It is so easy to sell right wing science to the fundies who believe the Earth is only six thousand years old. Nothing is easier than selling to idiots, and Fox has shown you can make a fortune doing it.

    • Gern Blanston

      But I thought there were to be death panels…Isn’t SOMEONE in Obamacare going to decide if the cost of my procedure is is worth it? Or are you suggesting the government wil be writing blank checks?

    • $8194357

      Joel Joel Joel..
      Vet your dang communist/muslim canidate, huh…
      Hidey and you ever play house?

    • Zog

      As a scientist (a real one, not a bureaucratic poseur with the IPCC) I’d really like to know: what is “right wing science”? By my measure, if it’s either right wing or left wing, it isn’t science.

      • AV

        Since you appear to have missed the point, right-wing science isn’t science. Just as Scientology has nothing to do with science.

        When (typically) fat, ignorant, angry, white, right-wing nutters rant against real science, claiming that they are the ones whose views are somehow backed by science, their rhetoric is “right-wing science.”

        For example, when you hear idiotic climate-change-deniers going on about sun-spots, that recent warming trends are “natural,” or that the IPCC are “bureaucratic poseurs,” then this will clue you in to the fact that you’re dealing with someone who thinks that they can pick-and-choose their own facts.

        • Zog

          I’m overwhelmed by the sagacity of your response. You are obviously intellectually superior to the “fat, angry, white, right wing nutters” who base their opinions on mere empirical evidence in the scientific literature.

          Seriously, your rant is the sort of thing that one can hear in any bar at about 1:00 AM. If you want to have a discussion with adults, you should get up off of your knuckles and learn to communicate like an adult.

          • AV

            What’s wrong, don’t like profiling?

            Also, the evidence doesn’t support your position. Several independent audits, including by two separate groups of physicists, have concluded that the consensus position best fits with the evidence.

            No reputable organisation has successfully debunked the claim.

            So, if you claim that the evidence supports your denialist view-point, then you must be an absolutely awful scientist.

        • banjo kid

          1,000 a number that should be remembered . and a lot of them quit the UN IPPC and joined up with the so called deniers ,. You have a lot of gall to call 1,000 scientists knuckle dragging fat white people . Lets call them by their titles, “SCIENTIST”.

    • banjo kid

      right wing science , war on Christmas , birther game, death panel, shabang of right wing nonsense ,fundies , idiots , Fox selling . now do you have any facts or are your posts going to continue to have nothing in them but name calling,.

  • WOOF

    For the world, the Europeans , the Chinese,
    global warming is settled science.
    “Qui tacet consentire”: the maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent”.
    Thomas Moore

    • The Whistler

      Wow, strong argument there. LMAO!

    • mickey_moussaoui

      settled science…lol. I’m sure all of China and Europe have had a one on one with you woofer. lol
      The scientific method calls for trial-and-error until the truth is determined. More than likely, this means many trials and many errors. Scientists learn from their errors. So wrong science is part of the scientific method. Wrong science becomes junk science only when its obvious or easily-determined flaws are ignored and it is then used to advance some special interest.

    • $8194357

      The collective voice of the lemming sings its sweet leftist tune…
      Global peace achieved?
      No of course not

    • jl

      For the Europeans and the Chinese it’s “settled science”? Thanks, Woof. Now I know more than ever that it’s the biggest scientific hoax in the history of man. Or Mann.

  • jamermorrow

    Hard to worry about the environment when you don’t have a job.

  • Patrick R. Pfeiffer

    Calling something “settled science” is the only proof needed it’s an ideology driven hoax. Science is NEVER settled, and never presumed to be settled, by definition.

    • AV

      No, you nutters really don’t get it do you?

      The science and data are still consistent with climate-change. And yes, it is “settled,” until there is some new science and/or data that challenges the current picture. The current research is basically developing improved models for making even-better predictions.

      As another example of a “settled science,” take evolution, it’s been settled for over 100 years (and in the filling-in-the-gaps phase). To “unsettle” it will require something completely new and unexpected.

      P.S. Feel free to publish a paper that proves your claim that climate-change is a hoax. Why settle for being such a mediocre dumbass, when you could elevate your “crank-index”?

      • Rob

        This conservative, and most conservatives, know that “climate change” is absolutely real. The climate is always changing. It’s, you know, weather. And I’ll even stipulate that certain warming trends over the last several decades are real too.

        Where we disagree, and what is most certainly not settled science, is the extent of mankind’s impact on it.

        • AV

          I agree that the “extent” is not settled, but that we’re causing some measurable affect upon the climate is basically settled.

          • mikemc1970

            Actually there is no definitive evidence that humans are in any measurable way affecting global temperatures.

          • banjo kid

            Are you one of the nutters out there that think Mother earth is supreme. That all this just happened with out an architect to design it all . yep if you are I think I could make some money selling bridges to you . What an idea it all just started from nothing and morphed into this ? Humans have been added by the Lord. The earth has been here maybe since the beginning who knows , carbon dating has been unreliable as with all science it is not settled ever , why do you think that real scientists try to disprove theories not prove them . There are over 1,000 scientist and many came out of the UN that say the others who say it is caused by man is full of it . Or do you read what you believe and don’t care if others have a differing opinion. The place I live used to be hilly and now it is level from the ice melting and the blade of ice coming from the north to the south leveled it, was that melt caused by man>?? it has happened before and it will happen again, nothing that we do would help stop it . You people have been searching for some cause any cause to satisfy your existence and now it is climate change , tell me what will it be in twenty years? what cause will you pursue and cause untold damage to the human race? We all need to learn that our time is limited and should go about living life and enjoying what the Lord has provided for us. The cost to economy and our way of living would be devastating, wake up they only want our money yours included.

          • AV

            “That all this just happened with out an architect to design it all.” — kid

            Who designed this architect that you speak of?

        • AV

          Also, because neither Obama nor Romney want to seriously address climate-change does not mean that it isn’t happening. It just means that they’ve calculated that it’s not really expedient for them to tackle it. For starters, it’ll hit poor countries earlier and harder.

          • banjo kid

            Actually it may help poor countries first, show me with all honesty what would happen and not conjecture but what would happen if the climate changes , could it maybe turn deserts (desserts) LOL into farm land or lush green Forrest, you see no one really knows do they . We are all fallible and make mistakes so climate change is important but we should not go off half cocked . It could benefit man kind over all. How would you feel if we did something and it turned out to be wrong and caused millions to die . I think having the courage to do nothing is paramount on climate chnage .

          • AV

            Sea level rise is bad for Bangladesh, and other countries.

  • banjo kid

    You might want to proof read the article I believe the word is shift not shi- .

  • banjo kid

    It is not worthy of mention in the debates

  • banjo kid

    thanks in no small part to a sh-tfrom coal power to natural gas,

    • Rob

      Ha, yeah, I fixed it.


      • banjo kid

        Yeah someone might drop you off in the dessert oops desert .

  • banjo kid

    s-h-i-tee got it

  • $8194357

    A X files moment from 7.62
    Educate yourselves…

    Your government won’t tell you…

  • Lynn Bergman
  • Lynn bergman

    Not surprising after this article appeared on my birthday this month… my best birthday present ever!–chart-prove-it.html

  • The Whistler

    There has been no warming in the last 16 years. The warming previous to that lasted 16 years. None of the experts on global warming predicted the last 16 years.

    There’s no evidence to go on right now.