My exception to +Michael Pate
's statement was centered more around his confusion between anti-science and innovation. Trying to encourage confidence and innovation in an unproven concept (like energy alternatives) is not anti-scientific. You can argue the cost/benefit analysis and make your arguments there. But the concept works, you just have to find a way to intergrate it into our current stratagies. Will it work? Who knows, but comparing Obama's push for this energy policy cannot be compared to people who deny the scientific concesus of the age of the earth, how life-forms evolve, and that the climate is changing. Republicans have argued against these topics by attacking the science and the scientists instead of using logical arguments. What's more, they push policy that marginalizes real scientific breakthroughs just because the disagree with it politcally. That's anti-science.
I appreciate +Michael Pate
engaging in a spirited debate and despite the fact we disagree, he is at least more agreeable than +Kevin Shutt