Call for a Presidential Debate on Science

Writer Matthew Chapman recently wrote a piece for the Washington Post calling for a science-only Presidential debate. While I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the candidates to embrace such a potentially difficult series of questions, a bit more emphasis on modern science and technology certainly couldn't hurt. "None of the candidates should know in advance what questions they might face. Not knowing the questions in advance would force them to study as much science as possible, and this in itself would be a marvelous thing. However, a statement would be read at the start stating that no one expects politicians to understand every aspect of the many scientific disciplines. The debate's tone would try not to be adversarial, but cordial and educational. It could even be fun."

Comments

Here's an idea

[Besna]

What sort of physical conditions (pressure, temperature) would have to exist to produce carbon from a mix of hydrogen and oxygen? ;)

Re:Here's an idea

[Surt]

Temperature: something in the range of 4000 kelvin
Pressure: something in the neighborhood of 40 PPa

Of course, you can trade one against the other to some extent, I don't have the formula handy.

Re:Here's an idea

[DamnStupidElf]

Vote Robot Nixon!

Screw that, I want YOU for president.

Re:Here's an idea

[Surt]

I don't see why. Carbon exists in the universe, which at least theoretically started only with a combination of hydrogen, temperature, and pressure.

Re:Here's an idea

[DavenH]

>>What sort of physical conditions (pressure, temperature) would have to exist to produce carbon from a mix of hydrogen and oxygen? ;) Giuliani: 911 KPa.

Re:Here's an idea

[BigBuckHunter]

Take it further with an evening gown and swimsuit "competition".

BBH

Republican answer

[paranode]

All you need is Jesus.

Re:Republican answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Rel. Right:
Evolution is wrong, only God can create carbon.

Old Right:
I believe the government has no right to make carbon, and it should be left to corporate ventures to do so more efficiently.

Neo Right:
I believe that the carbon is a threat to society and we should stop it by declaring war on [country unrelated to carbon]

Touchy-feely Left:
If they don't want to be carbon, they shouldn't be forced to change.

Old Left:
I'll form a government program to convert all hydrogen and oxygen into carbon [funding it by increasing taxes] and

Cop-Out Left:
The existance of carbon is a right wing conspiracy to go to war, and we shouldn't fall for that trap!

Note: they are politicians and have thus adimantly avoided the one correct answer for all of them:
"I DON'T KNOW!"

Host

[T Murphy]

It should be hosted by Bill Nye.

cordial and fun

[Speare]

The debate's tone would try not to be adversarial, but cordial and educational.

Not sure if this was meant as a joke, but Brownback of Kansas has already dropped out. There goes about half of your fun factor. The rest of the Republicans will hem and haw around the edges of the Creationism issue like a complex number approaching the Mandelbrot set, but Brownback came from the state so bold they redefined pi. The Democrats will try (and fail) to evoke Kennedy's passion for a moon launch while simultaneously explaining how scientifically advanced the latest V-Chip self-censoring technologies are getting.

How old is the Earth? How old is the Universe?

[Tackhead]

Let's weed out the dead wood.

"How old is the Earth? How old is the Universe? Answer both questions with a number."

Jesus freaks can vote for the guy who says "6,000 years".

Scientists can vote for the guy who says "4.5 billion years, 13.7 billion years, respectively, give or take a few hundred million"

And both the Jesus freaks and the scientists can agree on one thing: that any candidate who answers "they're both the same age, 4.5 billion years", or "both the same age, 13.7 billion years", or who splutters out something on the order of "millions" of years was so ignorant as to be wrong by at least three orders of magnitude.

President on power

[hey0you0guy]

Announcer: Mr President, with all of the issues about clean energy and rising oil prices, Americans are turning to alternate sources of energy. What are your thoughts on nuclear power? President: Its pronounced nuke-u-lar.

Hillary's answer

[morgan_greywolf]

Under my administration, everybody, even poor people, will have access to FREE carbon! I mean, with the limited carbon availble, someone has to think of the children! It takes a village to produce carbon from hydrogen and oxygen, and I'll do my part to ensure that we all pitch in!

*whisper*

What? You can't produce carbon from hydgrogen and oxygen?

Well, I'm not anything if tough on crime! We'll make sure that anybody caught putting hydrogen and oxygen together to make carbon will get the justice they deserve!

Questions submitted by the scientific community:

[Anonymous Coward]

Who'd be a better President: Kirk or Picard?

Can you eliminate that presidential physical fitness thing we had to do in gym class?

Are there alien spacecraft hidden at Area 51?

Are you the anti-christ like Damien from the Omen?

Can you fly like that President in Heroes, cause that'd be totally cool.

Could the Supreme Court start wearing those cool Jedi Council robes?

Could you use Linux, like, exclusively in like Air Force One or maybe some missiles or something?

Educational in a Scholarly Sense?

[lmnfrs]

..but cordial and educational. It could even be fun. If there is a presidential debate that's cordial, educational, and fun, I'll buy SCO stock.

a few steps omitted

[justfred]

n. ????
n+1. PROFIT!

Re:Democratic Answer

[QRDeNameland]

You missed a choice...

$) I weren't never no monkey!!

Huckabee's answer

[Grandiloquence]

We will consult with the lawyers to see if combining Hydrogen and Oxygen is allowed under the law.

Pork

[bobbuck]

Pork is flying out of Washington. Does that count?