(I assume your quote box and original comment got switched?)

On that score we absolutely agree. Did you see this today…?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/12/ipcc_…

Well, I agree…but then, we all know based on all of their claims about consensus building, etc. that they don't have the science on their side….neither regarding global warming or the supposed "medical necessity” of abortion to save the life of the mother (vs. a c-section or induced labor). So what I meant was, he is already educated in an ideology that is about as anti-science as you can get & still maintain the appearance of supporting science. I don’t expect he’s going to seek out any advisor that would present science that contradicted his ideology.

He needs to learn about Malthus, and he needs to read "America Alone".

His (or not his, who knows) islamic brethern are doing more than their fair share. He needs to be preaching to _them_, not the nortamericanos.

And we have _no_ idea what fantastic technological breakthroughs might occur in the next hundred years or so. Eventually we'll probably have a population crisis – and maybe it's a good idea to start worrying now, but I just don't think he's the man to do it. We also have no idea whether or not someone out there will manage to kill of 2/3 of the world's population with nuclear bombs, or whether there's some devasting illness that will kill all but a handful of people with a natural resistance to it.

Still…planning for catastrophes is a good thing. I just don't think Obama has the science background to do the job.

>>So, I’m quite sure Obama is educated in it[need for population control] already…>>

Familiarity with discourses on potential problems doesn't indicate scientific knowledge.

Some 15 or so years later, we seem to have a pretty good program going. It's mostly a two tiered program, one tier being mostly administrative, the second one being mostly teacher's record keeping, which of course, ties into the administrative. The kids get computer instruction, and use computers to do classwork and research, but imo, we haven't approached two remaining issues: use of special computer programs(actually, I don't know if there are any) to maximise a teacher's time in a way that enables the slow kids in a class and the advanced kids in a class to progress at a continuous rate while allowing the teacher to concentrate on the average student, and instruction of the parents of the children so that they can be aware of what their children are doing on the computer and the dangers of the internet.

We – the board – were responsible for this program, and we simply didn't know anything. How do you evaluate information when you don't know anything about the topic? My long story is to point up the fact that the problem Obama has – along with way too many who are responsible for establishing policy and making laws – is that they lack the background to evaluate the information they are given on a topic. Obama may have a law degree, but what is his background in science and economics? No one questions his intelligence, but intelligent and educated are two entirely different concepts, though related. Many people assume that ignorant is the same as stupid. It isn't – but by the same token, intelligent is not the same as educated. There's no doubt he can learn, but who will educate him? If he's educated by people who are non-scientific (by which I mean they have a desired outcome and then garner evidence to support their desired views), he's getting a very flawed education, and we're the ones who will suffer.