I am not a Democrat, either. But, I did watch An Inconvenient Truth, and it was very persuasive. If the facts contained in the documentary are accurate, then it is difficult to deny that there is something to the global warming theory. And, as much as it has been criticized, I haven't really heard anyone contradicting "the facts" as they were presented. They may point to "other facts" and make general comments about how "many scientists" disagree, but I haven't heard anyone say that he got the facts wrong.
In my opinion, this poses a perfect Pascal's Wager problem. Pascal's Wager says that "even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose." Likewise, if we follow the assumption that global warming poses a serious threat and we are wrong, the worst consequence is cleaner air and a faster track to viable alternative fuels and energy independence. If we ignore global warming and they naysayers are wrong... well... our grandchildren, or great grandchildren, will pay the price.
But, this has gotten off track from the original topic of Obama as a Presidential candidate. Though he leaves much to be desired and he may be misguided on many issues, he seems to be intelligent, well spoken, and he possess more common sense than many of the other candidates and past Presidents. At least he offers some hope that we will not continue to be led down the same weary path that every other politician has followed. That is definitely a mark in the "plus" column. However, it is still too early to tell... I think we will be in store for some excellent debates in the general election and I'm not going to make up my mind this early in the process. The only thing I can say for certain is that I will not vote for whats-her-name.
Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE
to post a reply:
login - or -
register