I was under the impression Torquemada actually ran up quite a high score.

(Non-Oz readers please ignore this comment).

Debates with these guys are an utter waste of time. Even if they lose, they’ll just throw a hissy fit, give a ton of after-the-fact excuses to ‘explain’ why the debate was rigged, and then ask for another debate.

 —bi, Intl. J. Inact.

You are supposed to question everything.

Utter bullcrap. Science isn’t about “questioning everything”, it’s about falsifiability and falsification.

Questioning whether Barack Obama may be a Muslim, despite every indication that’s actually observable—that isn’t science, that’s cloud-cuckoo woo universe.

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642)

The trick about these guys is that they thrive in a broadcast environment. They aren’t one-on-one conmen, but rather dishonest advertisers for the actual conmen. Smart guys like that don’t get into a format where anything that they say can be analyzed, reviewed and rebutted. If they do, they’ll revert to the ‘Gish Gallop’.

(Another reason I want John to be in the debate – Gerson’s talking points about “Liberals” would fall flat on his face against him. I doubt John has voted Liberal for the last couple of decades.)

Still the other commenters are right on the science of climate change, and in their calls to avoid complacency based on an assumption of inevitable victory.

However, we now have so many indicators that point in the same direction that this is simply moot. The collapse of Arctic sea ice is only the most visible, but there are many more. The scientific debate at this point is about how much we have underestimated climate change, not whether it is occurring. And we’re quite worried that we have discounted phase shifts.

After that service, Gerson should be assumed to be lying until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

And here comes a lying warrior on science in the flesh.

Please start with Deltoid:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/05/no_global_warming_didnt_stop_i.php
and then go on to Real Climate:
http://www.realclimate.org/

“No matter which is true, and which is false (and conceivably, it could be both), scientific study and experimentation will tell us the answer – and we’ll all be better off at that point.”

The point of the concept of Republican War on Science is that the republicans aren’t doing that. They’re putting out lies, and trying to prevent experimentation. Odd, that you can’t tell the difference.

“There are a lot of wars in which bullets and bombs are used. Those are the wars we need to worry about. A war on science? No. Science has proven over the centuries that it can take care of itself. Galileo 1, Torquemada 0.”

And the Khmer Rouge collapsed after only ~20 years; the USSR after ~70. No consolation to those living during those periods.