US debate about the C(-limate) word mean missing out on new technologies where Europe and China are innovating in alternatives to oil
+Murray J Brown shared this with the following excerpt from the article, which is worth the read:

Republican Meteorologist to Mitt Romney: My Top Ten Reasons for Republicans to Accept Reality on the Climate »

As a Republican business owner, entrepreneur, meteorologist and father of two upbeat, optimistic boys, I may not fit the stereotype of a "global warming alarmist." … I'm disillusioned, because some in my party are pro-science-denial, and on the wrong side of history. The word "conservative" no longer applies to the environment. The GOP's new energy platform shows this, in a stunning departure from 2008. … America has been blessed with a rich supply of natural resources and innovative technologies to wean ourselves off foreign crude. But our fossil fuel frenzy is impacting the weather floating above our heads. Denying that it's raining doesn't keep you from getting wet, and climate change has gone from theory to reality - while our side fiddles away like Nero.
This is what happens when one industry comes to rule a country.

According to the World Economic Forum, America's global competitiveness fell from 1st to 7th place since 2007. Should we just accept that most breakthrough energy technologies are originating in China and Europe, where there is no more "debate" about climate trends? Why is America still questioning the science? For political entertainment?
Shared publiclyView activity