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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (70003)	6/1/2008 2:49:44 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541274

But Romm's point was that Newton's were not "overthrown." If you are saying that Krauthammer didn't say that they were overthrown, then it was only a conditional hypothetical, then fine, you could argue against anything with that line of rhetoric. "Gee, even Newton's laws might be overthrown, therefore climate change might be found to be erroneous, therefore we ought not conclude anything from it." But I think he was saying something stronger than that. Or at least strongly implying something stronger than "Even Newton's laws might be overthrown." It is a common misperception that the theory of relativity somehow invalidated Newton, while what it really did was put his work into a broader perspective, not invalidate him. Whatever, Romm's larger points are correct, IMHO. If we do nothing over the next 10-20 years, we are more likely than not setting up the world for extremely difficult times, possibly catastrophic times in terms of life as we know it. But then, I'm just a nutcase, why listen to me? (yeah, I know, bob and anyone who wants to make a cheap point will have a field day with that comment, but fine....)