Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lou Weed who wrote (252532)	12/28/2007 11:09:46 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think obamas oprah moment might cost him dearly in iowa in the end and not because he and she and his wife are all black. I think it has to do with the way older men might look at demasculation of barack as the two strong women take charge. I have no problem voting for a tough broad like thatcher or hillary but i do have a problem voting for a guy who appears whipped. I think obama could go from #1 in iowa to #3 real fast and that either hillary or edwards might win now. If obama doesnt win iowa he has big problems going forward. PS The reason for edwards going past obama is the point i made plus he looks more experienced than obama, wrongly so imo, because of edwards last run for veep plus he is white and that matter a tiny bit in the dem primary. If i am wrong and obama wins and overcomes all of this, he will be tough to beat.

To: Lou Weed who wrote (252532)	12/28/2007 4:18:26 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I still don't get it about the difference in our quotes, but let's let it go. My views of science are informed by Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," which holds that scientific discovery does not progress steadily and orderly, but rather between periods of normalcy and crisis. Radical theories such as "relativity" or "the big bang" disrupt normal science and throw disciplines into crisis and chaos. It is at these times that the "scientific establishment" becomes fiercely defensive of the currently accepted paradigm system and resistent to the new theory. I agree with you about politics affecting science, and so do prevailing social values. The result is that objective and impartial "truth" is lost sight of. IMO, GW is hopelessly entangled in all of this -- to the point where we cannot know who to believe, least of all the scientists themselves who may have heavily vested interests on one side or the other. There are few if any climate scientists participating on SI, and so we see a lot of scientific mumbo-jumbo being cited here by people who have no credentials to evaluate it, or understand it, and who only post what seems to support their preconceived beliefs (which have nothing to do with science). I don't dispute that we MAY be in a period of global warming -- perhaps over 30 years, or perhaps 100 years. After all, earth's history is nothing if not alternating periods of warm and cold. Ice ages come and go, and so do warming periods. You and I are on the planet for a very short time and our brief lives may coincide with a very slight warming trend. For any one of us, our lives would probably be much too short to even notice such gradual climate change over our lifetimes. Humans have been on earth for only a tiny fraction of the dinosaur reign. Certainly our days are numbered. Our world population keeps increasing, and there must come a point when the surface of the planet will not be able to sustain our existence. Of course, we could be gone before that point if an asteroid or comet impact renders earth uninhabitable for humans, like the one nearing Mars right now. It's all pretty much a matter of chance. In short, we have a lot to worry about, if we choose. At this point, global warming is not in the top ten for me. I would rather see our resources used to fix things we know we CAN fix, and I don't see "climate" as one of those. JC