Which progressives want to disarm U.S. militarism? This seems like an argument in search of a question. I seriously doubt that most Americans who consider themselves "progressive" want to disband the military. Most of us realize that a strong military is needed for self defense. However, that doesn't seem to prevent the right (and now apparently Salon.com) from mis-characterizing our criticisms of the Iraq war and our current foreign policy of bomb and invade first, ask questions later.

Also, the idea that the US military is somehow "diverse" is laughable. The US military is mainly made up of poor and working class young men. Since when is that diverse?

OK, so the Brittany Spears articles seems to have stopped. But, now Salon is publishing articles on Hannah Montana and High School Musical?

Why can't any media outlet today remain by, for, and about adults? Are these stories too easy and/or too profitable? Why do good, solid journalistic publications feel the need to give the TV viewing habits of 9 year olds any sort of consideration? Are 9 year olds reading Salon.com? Is the Disney Channel advertising here? What gives?

There is no real debate on global warming, at least not among scientists. Crackpots, right-wing conspiracy theorists, and former freshman geology students aside, an overwhelming fraction of scientists believe that global warming is happening right now and that humans are the cause of it. Bloggers can blog and columnists can spew forth nonsense, but that doesn't change this simple fact.

Its a common ploy of the right to create a "controversy" where there is none. In addition to the supposed "global warming controversy," there are also the "evolution controversy" and the "stem-cell research controversy." Its a clever strategy. The right gets to look thoughtful about an issue while their real agenda is to generate doubt in the public, undermine the credibility of science, and push their medieval religious beliefs on everyone else. This is nothing more than the "fair and balanced" viewpoint that Fox News claims to present to the public.

Debate over an actual controversy is great, but in scientific matters (unlike in arts and letters) eventually one side wins the debate based on facts (as is the case with global warming). In science, there is eventually one right answer. Your refusal to acknowledge this is intellectually dishonest and disappointing.

Salon.com's continued policy of allowing Paglia to spew her stubbornly ignorant viewpoints on matters of science and technology is a large part of my decision to not renew my annual subscription, which expires in a few days. I hope all of the hits her column gets were worth the loss of a loyal reader that has subscribed for years and turned many others on to your site.

There is nothing like childish name calling to convince others that you are right... Methinks I hit a nerve.

So, let me get this straight. An entire panel of 100's of independent scientists (www.ipcc.ch) from all over the world are wrong. They didn't consider your little sun analogy and screwed this whole global warming thing up (ooops!). Also, big business is really behind the world wide conspiracy to convince everyone that global warming is real because they'd rather suffer through CO2 emissions caps or taxes than deal with other environmental problems that they are creating. Finally, the entire system of scientific research doesn't work and we're all just deluding ourselves into thinking that global warming exists and/or is man made. Is that what you are arguing? Really?

Your letter points out why public figures like Paglia need to take the responsibility to educate themselves before speaking out on issues of science and technology. People like you read what they write and believe them! Writing about science and technology is different than writing about poetry and film (though no more or less worthy subjects). In science, its important to get the facts straight. Simple opinion and logic are not good enough. Its very, very easy to start with a fallacy (like your sun analogy or the idea that the Earth is far too large for humans to have any impact on its climate) and then logically work your way farther and farther from the truth. Steven Colbert pointed this out when he coined the term "truthiness," the idea that something is correct if it sounds correct.

Somewhere, far from here and the lousy website that Paglia noted, there are real debates going on about global warming. (For example, the prediction of effects of global warming on our climate is rather difficult and based on many assumptions.) However, nothing you or Paglia have ever said about this topic begins to approach the complexity of this issue.

I do accept your point that global warming is overshadowing other environmental problems that we should be doing something about right now. The rape of the land by coal strip mines, mercury emissions, the nuclear waste problem, tailpipe emissions, acid rain, destruction of habitat for endangered, etc species all concern me and plenty of other scientists. However, that doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening right now and that we need to act sooner rather than later. How can you believe the science that tells you that these other problems are real and not believe the same scientists and system that tell you that global warming is real?