Personally, I don't buy the arguement that the objection Republicans have is over Kyoto specifically. Though the Republicans wink and imply that they would whole-heartedly support some vague/undefined pollution agreement at some vague/undefined future date -- I don't believe that.

They have masterfully framed the disagreement as being over this particular agreement -- when the reality is that would vehemently oppose any pollution agreement presented to them (though none would ever been so reckless as to come out and say it plainly)

The fastest way to expose the true agenda is to ask the Republicans what type of pollution agreement they would support. When this question is asked in other forums across the Internet the response is, at first, to refuse to be pinned down to any specific regulations or any specific date for implementation. At first the Republicans will just insist that there exists some far-off mythical "agreement" that both gives businesses total freedom while at the same time, somehow, magically reduces pollution. They would support that mythical agreement. When pressed hard for specifics the answer is always the same: there is no government mandated requirement that they would ever find acceptable. None. Oh, they will support voluntary guidelines, but not requirements. If Congress passed a law simply suggesting to industrial sites that they maybe/probably shouldn't dump 50 metric tons of mecury into our drinking water, sure, they would whole-heartedly support a totally voluntary set of guidelines with absolutely no oversight, enforcement or fines of any kind.

The true agenda of the small government (read: NO government) Republicans is to totally eliminate all environmental standards and oversight. Forget Kyoto, these guys would not support ANY agreement presented to them.

I've heard that charge made against him before and I am curious about the psychology behind it.

I think some people (a very small group of people) mistake Obama's coolness in the face of attack as being "condescending."

It's almost as if the critics leveling the charge are watching his professionalism and statemanship during the debates and thinking, "Look at him! Sitting there and being all....polite! He's not even yelling as loudly as Hillary is! He must think he is so much better than the rest of us. How.....condescending!"

After 8 long years of George W Bush we've forgotten what statesmanship and professional actually look like, I think.

I think we're just so use to the Karl Rove style of "debate" wherein everyone is the enemy and debating is defined as just screaming insults at your opponent that when we're confronted with a calm, unflustered response we are viewing that as somehow insulting.

Well if Obama is insulting and "condescending" then give me more of it!

Personally I don't buy that the skeptics care one iota about the science. To them this is NOT an arguement about a scientific theory. I also don't buy the arguement that the objection Republicans have is over Kyoto Protocal specifically. Though the Republicans wink and imply that they would whole-heartedly support some vague/undefined pollution agreement at some vague/undefined future date -- I don't believe that.

S'funny how Republicans don't get quite this passionate over any other scientific theory (well, except evolution). Have there been Seantors on the floor pounding their fists on podiums debating the science of whether or not Pluto should be classified as a planet or an asteroid? Nope. Why? Because the political implications of climate change (stricter pollution controls mandated by government) scare the hell out of Republicans and they are fighting like demons to keep those aging, outdate factories in Detroit "as-is".

The Republicans have masterfully framed the disagreement as being over this particular agreement Kyoto -- when the reality is that would vehemently oppose any pollution agreement presented to them (though none would ever been so reckless as to come out and say it plainly)

The fastest way to expose the true agenda is to ask the Republicans what type of pollution agreement they would support. When this question is asked in other forums across the Internet the response is, at first, to refuse to be pinned down to any specific regulations or any specific date for implementation. At first the Republicans will just insist that there exists some far-off mythical "agreement" that both gives businesses total freedom while at the same time, somehow, magically reduces pollution. They would support that mythical agreement. When pressed hard for specifics the answer is always the same: there is no government mandated requirement that they would ever find acceptable. None. Oh, they will support voluntary guidelines, but not requirements. If Congress passed a law simply suggesting to industrial sites that they maybe/probably shouldn't dump 50 metric tons of mecury into our drinking water, sure, they would whole-heartedly support a totally voluntary set of guidelines with absolutely no oversight, enforcement or fines of any kind.

The true agenda of the small government (read: NO government) Republicans is to totally eliminate all environmental standards and oversight. Forget Kyoto, these guys would not support ANY agreement presented to them.

This isn't about the science.

The Republican couldn't care less about the science. What they care about is disproving climate change solely so they can prevent it from being used to create momentum (by Progressive politicans) to enforce tougher pollution standards.