Along with the economy, the war, and personal associations from the past, will science be taking center stage in this year's presidential elections?

This weekend, the release of Ben Stein's intelligent design documentary, "Expelled," has shoved that particular issue back into the public eye, if only for a few weeks. The film has already prompted a dismissive response from famed atheist Richard Dawkins (who, interestingly, chooses to focus on alien invaders to frame his argument), and an equally irritated dissertation in Slate. The obvious tie to presidential politics, of course, has to do with school curriculums--something unlikely to be touched with a ten foot pole.

A more likely and worthy candidate for discussion, of course, would be the environment--a topic in which potential action plans abound. In today's Wall Street Journal, however, Patrick Michaels argues that we need to get our numbers straight first:

The earth's paltry warming trend, 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the mid-1970s, isn't enough to scare people into poverty. And even that 0.31 degree figure is suspect.

However, he doubts we'll take the time to do so:

President George W. Bush has just announced his goal to stabilize greenhouse-gas emissions by 2025. To get there, he proposes new fuel-economy standards for autos, and lower emissions from power plants built in the next 10 to 15 years.

Pending legislation in the Senate from Joe Lieberman and John Warner would cut emissions even further – by 66% by 2050. No one has a clue how to do this. Because there is no substitute technology to achieve these massive reductions, we'll just have to get by with less energy.

Will this discussion, ahem, "heat up" as we reach November? We'll have to wait and see.