Just wondering how much credit you all would give me on my opinions on AGW, considering my education credentials are at least equivalent to Stossle's (I actually had a double major to his single focus)...
That point aside, can anyone defend why they think it matters whether we have the debate of AGW or not. I mean, shouldn't we be focused here in America on how to develop the green technology regardless? That is to say if you don't think AGW is actually happening, do you also deny the public's shifting interest in the alternative energy markets?
I'd say to the AGW deniers, you're wasting valuable time debating the causes and not just jumping on the technology development that's inevitable.
Here's something to consider, before making the claim that green-tech is not a profitable industry: what would change if the subsides given to fossil fuels and green tech were reversed. Ya, that's right, you think our fossil fuels are so cheap, but you're probably ignoring the subsidies that fossil fuels receive.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others